TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent from the record that the adjudicating authority dropped the demand relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal mentioned in para 2 above. Hence, the adjudicating authority attached precedent value to the said CESTAT decisions, although the same were accepted by the department on monetary limits not on merits. Whereas para 7 of the CBEC instructions clearly states that the orders accepted on account of monetary limit shall not have precedent value. Thus, the impugned order was issued in gross violation of the CBEC instructions. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The case is remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh order complying with the said CBEC instructions." 2.1 Show cause noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner Central excise Kanpur and the show cause notice mentioned at sl. No. 1 is, recurring show cause notice on similar grounds for the period from 01.07.16 to 30.06.2017. All the above show cause notices/ statement of demands were kept pending for decision/ adjudication on above reasons till issuance of final order by the CESTAT, Allahabad 43. Here, find that CESTAT, Allahabad have decided the case by issuance of its final order No. A/70546-70551/2017-Ex [DB) dated 15.05.2017 and A71026/2018-EX[DB] dated 08.05.2018. I find that the CESTAT in its final order has upheld the findings of the Commissioner Appeals, Kanpur and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. In the final order no. A/70546-70551/2017-Ex [DB) dated 15.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty does not arise." 2.3 Aggrieved revenue filed the appeal before First Appellate authority which was allowed and matter was remanded back to the original authority as per the impugned order. 2.4 Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri A. K. Choudhary Departmental Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with submissions made in the appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Para 3 of the impugned order is reproduced below:- "3. Aggrieved with the order, the Department filed this appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the Adjudicating Authority has violated the CBEC's instruction dated 20.10.2010 iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the provisions of this Act, it shall not preclude such Central Excise Officer from filing appeal, application, revision or reference in any other case involving the same or similar issues or questions of law. (3) Notwithstanding the fact that no appeal, application, revision or reference has been filed by the Central Excise Officer pursuant to the orders or instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), no person, being a party in appeal, application, revision or reference shall contend that the Central Excise Officer has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by not filing appeal, application, revision or reference. (4) The Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or Court hearing such appeal, applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances in which earlier order was accepted by the revenue authorities and no appeal was filed. Thus in case the order of tribunal was accepted by the revenue on the monetary grounds than when the matter comes before the Tribunal, Tribunal can take a contrary view even if the earlier order was accepted by the revenue on the monetary grounds. All the authorities below Tribunal would be bound by the earlier order of Tribunal. 4.7 In the impugned order no ground has been stated from the revenue appeal filed before the said authority which ran contrary to the observation made by the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 15.05.2017. In such a situation impugned order setting aside the order of original authority just for the reason that earl....