Parity in connected refund appeals required identical treatment, with remand limited to quantifying refund on goods sold as such.

Where appeals arise from a common order on identical facts, parity of treatment must be maintained, and a technical objection cannot defeat substantive relief when a connected Bench has already granted the same benefit on the same issue. The connected matters had recognised refund of special additional duty on goods sold as such and remanded only to determine the eligible quantum, so the appellant was entitled to the same relief. The impugned order was set aside and the matter restored for fresh determination limited to the refund claim on such sales.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in appeals arising from a common order-in-appeal and involving identical facts, the appellant was entitled to parity of relief as had been granted by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in connected matters.

Analysis: The appeals arose from the same common order and the factual matrix was identical. In the connected batch decided by the Division Bench, refund of special additional duty on goods sold "as such" had been recognised and the matters were remanded to ascertain the quantum eligible for refund. The anomaly created by divergent outcomes on the same set of facts, only because the appeals were placed before different benches on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, could not be allowed to stand. The technical objection that the plea had not been raised earlier was held not to defeat substantial justice where uniform treatment was required.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the same relief as granted in the connected appeals, and the matter was required to be remanded for determining the quantum of "as such" sale eligible for refund.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh determination limited to the refund claim on goods sold "as such".

Ratio Decidendi: Where appeals arise from a common order on identical facts, parity of treatment must be maintained, and a technical objection cannot defeat substantive relief when a connected bench has already granted the same benefit on the same legal issue.

---