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

..... Appellant : Ramesh Chandra Shukla, S. S. C. For The Respondent : Nishant Mishra ORDER Heard learned Standing counsel for the revenue and Sri Nishant Mishra learned counsel for the department. As the controversy involved in both the appeals being common, the same are being disposed of by a common order treating the Central Excise Appeal no.104 of 2017 as the leading case. The leading case i. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.12.2013. By the subsequent order dated 18.3.2014 the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the revenue's appeal and allowed the same. Thus two conflicting orders were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue that was raised by the assessee in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s appeals, the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be faulted insofar as it is admitted to the revenue that the order against which the assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), was conflicting with the order passed in the appeal preferred by the revenue. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X