Parity in connected proceedings requires remand and uniform relief; CESTAT order set aside and rehearing ordered.

Where proceedings between the same parties raise substantially identical issues, the parity principle requires similar treatment absent demonstrated special circumstances, and the HC applied that principle to set aside the impugned appellate order and remand the matter for fresh consideration; the court kept all contentions open and directed reconsideration consistent with the contemporaneous proceeding. The appeal under the statutory appeal provision was allowed in favour of the assessee, with the CESTAT order vacated and the matter returned for rehearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the relief granted to the assessee in an identical earlier proceeding should be extended by parity, and whether the CESTAT order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The facts and legal questions in this appeal are substantially similar to those decided in a contemporaneous proceeding involving the same parties. Where materially identical issues arise between connected proceedings, parity requires similar treatment unless special circumstances justify deviation. No special circumstances have been demonstrated on the record to warrant a different result. In view of the identical nature of the dispute and the need for uniformity, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the impugned appellate order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, keeping all contentions of the parties open.

Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee; the CESTAT order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration with all contentions of the parties kept open.

---