Page 138 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

672 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

sion petition. The revisional authority ought to have therefore decided both the
revision applications together. Learned Counsel in support of his arguments re-
lied on the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. v. International Security &
Intelligence Agency Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 250 and Expo-Fyn Electricals & Electronics v.
Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur-1 - 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 160 (Raj.). Mr. Sameer Jain,
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced a communication dated 13-12-
2017 sent by Section Officer (RA) on the correct address of the petitioner with
regard to his Revision Application.
4. The Learned Counsel for the respondent Ms. Vartika Mehra for Mr.
Sandeep Pathak submitted that the petitioner was very much aware of the pend-
ing revision petition which is evident from the application Anex. 12, dated 11-5-
2016 submitted by him to the revisional authority, and therefore, it was his duty
to have kept track of the dates of hearing and ensured his presence. It is also ar-
gued that the respondents were unaware of the revision petition filed by the peti-
tioner, and therefore, if two revision petitions have not been decided together,
they cannot be blamed for the same.
5. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order, we find that though the correct address of the petitioner has
been given in first page in the order passed in appeal by the appellate authority,
but on the last page of the said order, the old address of the petitioner has been
mentioned. Thus, it appears that the notices of revision petition, if at all, issued
were not sent on the correct address of the petitioner.
6. Another important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has also
challenged the same order passed by the Commissioner, Customs Central Excise
(Appeals), Jaipur dated 23-2-2015 before the same revisional authority. This is
substantiated from the notice of hearing received by the communication dated
13-12-2017 received by the petitioner informing that his revision petition has
been accepted and listed wherein on the top of the said letter reference number
was mentioned. It is always advisable, nay necessary, to decide the cross-
appeal/cross-revision together, separately filed against the common order, if
both the assessee and the revenue are aggrieved by different parts thereof. In that
event, the appellate/revisional authority would be in a better position to appre-
ciate the rival submissions and possibility of conflicting findings on the same
issues would be avoided. The revisional authority was therefore, required to de-
cide both the revision petitions together after notice to petitioner on his correct
address.
7. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, we are per-
suaded to set aside the order passed by the revisional authority dated 13-4-2018
and remit the matter back to the revisional authority for clubbing the revision
Petitions No. 375/37/B/2017-P.A. filed by the assessee and 380/15-A/B/2015-
RA filed by the Department together and decide both the petitions after due no-
tice to the petitioner on his correct address.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

________

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  138