https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446318 CESTAT Allahabad held that the Commissioner (Appeals) violated judicial discipline principles by contradicting a final tribunal order dated 03.01.2019 regarding appellant's entitlement to interest from deposit date until realization. The tribunal established that once an unchallenged order attains finality, it cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings by the same authority. The Commissioner's finding that revenue accepted the earlier order purely on monetary grounds was incorrect, as the interest amount exceeded prevailing monetary limits. Section 35R(4) can only be invoked by the same or superior authority that issued the original order, not by inferior authorities. The Assistant Commissioner correctly followed the tribunal's order in sanctioning interest. Appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Dec 2023 09:26:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446318 CESTAT Allahabad held that the Commissioner (Appeals) violated judicial discipline principles by contradicting a final tribunal order dated 03.01.2019 regarding appellant's entitlement to interest from deposit date until realization. The tribunal established that once an unchallenged order attains finality, it cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings by the same authority. The Commissioner's finding that revenue accepted the earlier order purely on monetary grounds was incorrect, as the interest amount exceeded prevailing monetary limits. Section 35R(4) can only be invoked by the same or superior authority that issued the original order, not by inferior authorities. The Assistant Commissioner correctly followed the tribunal's order in sanctioning interest. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446318