Inconsistent Decisions on Exemptions Remanded for Consistency

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding inconsistency in deciding show cause notices on exemptions claimed. It noted varying decisions on the same issues, with some periods allowing and others disallowing claims. Emphasizing the settled disputes in favor of the appellant and lack of consistency, the Tribunal remanded the matter to ensure consistent orders without disrupting granted benefits. All appeals were allowed based on this finding, highlighting the importance of maintaining consistency and preserving granted benefits for the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Inconsistency in deciding show cause notices regarding exemption claimed.

Analysis:
The case involved six appeals filed by the appellant related to the construction of residential and commercial complexes. The Revenue issued show cause notices on various grounds, including the eligibility for claimed exemptions. However, the adjudicating authorities took different stands on the same issues during different periods, allowing the issue in one period and disallowing it in another. The appellant argued that all disputes raised against them had been settled in their favor during different periods, and no appeals were filed. The Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the inconsistency in the orders. The Tribunal noted that the same issue was allowed for certain periods and disallowed for others, leading to a lack of consistency. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the legal position on the negatively passed issue remained unchanged. Additionally, it was observed that whenever the authorities allowed the appellant's claim, the Revenue did not appeal, resulting in the finality of those issues for that period. The Tribunal concluded that all issues raised in the show cause notices had been resolved in favor of the appellant at some point. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the original authority to pass orders consistently without interfering with the benefits already granted to the appellant.

In the final decision, all the appeals were allowed by way of remand to the original authority based on the above findings. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in decision-making and ensuring that benefits rightfully granted to the appellant were not unjustly interfered with.

---