COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. CIPLA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two Appeals on our Board together with the Central Excise Appeal Nos. 101/2012, 102/2012 and 103/2012. These two Appeals, namely, Central Excise Appeal (lodging) Nos. 68/2012 and 69/2012 have not been registered and numbered because the Revenue, according to the Registry, has not removed the office objections. We find from a perusal of the paper books that some of the office objections were capable of being waived and when the common order is under challenge. The remaining office objections, if any, shall be duly removed is the assurance given on behalf of the Revenue by Mr. Kantharia. On such assurance we set aside the Registry's order of rejection of Appeals and direct that same be registered and numbered. In any event both sides agree that they shall be taken up today along with other Appeals and dispose of by the common order as similar point is involved therein.

(2.) WE have extensively heard Mr. Kantharia, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in support of these Appeals, on the earlier occasion. We have also heard Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee.

(3.) UPON perusal of the order under challenge we find that entertaining the Appeals and keeping them pending would serve no purpose essentially because the finding of the Tribunal is that none of the manufacturers/suppliers have claimed the refund of duty/reversal of credit. In these circumstances and when their identity is common with that of the Respondent/Assessee that we find that by keeping the larger issue and question open for being decided in an appropriate case these Appeals can be disposed of on such finding of fact.