ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. It is seen that the original adjudicating authority vide order-in-original No. 127-128/TH-III/RKM/95-96, dated 29-3-96 confirmed the demand of duty against the respondents on the ground that notional interest on the advances received by them were includable in the assessable value of the goods. The said order was challenged by way of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority vide his order dated 25-10-96 set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de nova proceedings with directions to pass suitable order after ascertaining the nexus between the advances taken and the sale price.
2. It is further seen that the same appeal was again disposed off by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his subsequent order dated 23-9-99 vide which he set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner in toto and allowed the appeal. Revenue is aggrieved with the second order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. We agree with the Id. DR that the appeal having been disposed off once by the appellate authority, there was no occasion for him to pass a second order in respect of the same order-in-original. As regards the question as to which order out of the two has to be accepted, it requires no arguments to say that the first order passed in the year 1996 by the Commissioner (Appeals) is the one, which dispose off the appeal at the first instance. The second order passed in the year 1999 is void ab initio inasmuch as there was no order of the Assistant Commissioner existing at that point of time, so as to be set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order passed in the year 1999 is null and void and set aside the same.
(Dictated in Court)