Contradictory tribunal orders justify writ interference and remand for reconsideration without reaching Cenvat credit merits.

The HC exercised supervisory and writ jurisdiction after finding contradictory tribunal orders in the same controversy. Without deciding the merits of entitlement to Cenvat credit on sugar cess, it held that the inconsistency in the tribunal's conclusions justified interference. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned tribunal order was liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for reconsideration in view of contradictory orders passed in the same controversy.

Analysis: The petition invoked the supervisory and writ jurisdiction of the Court. On a perusal of the rival tribunal orders, the Court found that contradictory conclusions had been reached in the petitioner's case. Without entering into the merits of the dispute regarding entitlement to Cenvat credit on sugar cess, the Court treated the inconsistency in the tribunal's orders as sufficient to interfere with the impugned order.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

---