2018 (3) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssed by the adjudicating authority and further that two orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were apparently conflicting - appeal dismissed. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 104 of 2017 And Central Excise Appeal No. - 95 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2017 - Mr. Bharati Sapru And Mr. Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. For The Appellant : Ramesh Chandra Shukla, S. S. C. For The Respondent : Nishant M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judicating authority had sanctioned refund claim of ₹ 13,35,62,158/-. The assessee and revenue both being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred their separate appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), that came to be decided on different dates by separate orders. Though both appeals had arisen from a single order of adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s to be heard and decided de novo. Sri R.C. Shukla learned counsel for the revenue submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous as no prejudice is caused to the assessee by separate orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Per contra Sri Nishant Mishra learned counsel for the assessee submits that though since there were cross appeals, the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X