JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. Since both these petitions arise out of common order No. 1351-1352/12-CX dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, and the parties are also common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts as appearing in Special Civil Application No. 14616 of 2015. 3. The petitioner, a Company was engaged in the business of manufacture and export of excisable goods like Mouth Freshner (viz. Pan Masala) at the relevant time, but now the petitioners' manufacturing and export business has come to a complete halt on account of severe financial crisis being faced by the petitioners. At the relevant time, the petitioner Company was registered with the Central Excise Department as a manufacturer. In the normal course of its business, the petitioner Company purchased various consignments of Rainbow Mouth Freshner (Pan Masala) in bulk pack of 40 kilograms from one M/s. Unicorn Industries, having its factory at Jorthang in the State of Sikkim. The goods purchased in bulk pack of 40 kilograms each, were processed by the petitioner Company, and the goods so purchased were repacked in smaller packs/tins and thus, processes of repacking from bulk to retail packs and also labelling of such retail packs had been undertaken by the petitioner Company, which constituted "manufacture" as contemplated under Chapter Note No. 4 of Chapter 21 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner Company was, accordingly, liable to pay excise duty on the goods so manufactured, that is, goods packed in retail packs and affixed with the appropriate label. The petitioner company had export orders of these goods and therefore, while exporting the goods at the price of Rs. 1822/- per kilogram, the petitioner Company had discharged duty liability of excise on these goods in accordance with central excise law. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the petitioner Company was entitled to rebate of excise duties paid on these goods exported by it and therefore, the petitioner Company had been exporting these goods under claim of rebate by following the procedure for exporting the goods. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the petitioner Company was entitled to rebate of excise duties paid on these goods exported by it and therefore, the petitioner Company had been exporting these goods under claim of rebate by following the procedure for exporting the goods. The petitioner Company lodged rebate claims in connection with the duties paid on eighty seven consignments of Pan Masala manufactured and exported by it in the month of June, 2011. The total duties paid on the goods exported in June 2011 was Rs. 2,81,33,060/- and hence, the petitioner Company claimed the above aggregate amount of Rs. 2,81,33,060/- as rebate. A show cause notice dated 18.11.2011 came to be issued to the petitioner Company proposing to reject all the rebate claims on the ground that condition laid down at Serial No. 2(e) of Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 read with rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, stood contravened as regards the rebate claims. In response thereto, the petitioner Company filed a detailed reply dated 07.12.2011. After hearing the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the rebate claims vide Order-in-Original No. 148 to 234/REB/CEX/2011 dated 13.01.2012. Being aggrieved the petitioner Company went in appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad who allowed the appeal with consequential relief vide Order-in-Appeal dated 19.03.2012. The Excise Department did not accept the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and filed a revision application against the same before the Joint Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi. The Joint Secretary, Government of India, by the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, held that the case was required to be remanded for a fresh decision. The revisional authority, in the order made on the revenue's revision application, observed that the outcome of DGCEI investigation and final decision in classification dispute by common adjudicator Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi were required to be taken into account and the applicability of condition No. 2(h) of Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) was also required to be examined. 4. Pursuant to the order of remand, the petitioners continuously requested the second respondent to decide the remanded proceedings, however, to no avail. Recently, by a communication dated 31.07.2015, the petitioners once again requested the second respondent to take up the remanded case for adjudication. 4. Pursuant to the order of remand, the petitioners continuously requested the second respondent to decide the remanded proceedings, however, to no avail. Recently, by a communication dated 31.07.2015, the petitioners once again requested the second respondent to take up the remanded case for adjudication. Since, the second respondent is not deciding the matter, the petitioner has filed the present petitions seeking the following substantive reliefs: "20. In the above premises, the petitioners most respectfully pray as under: [A] That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Order No. 1351-1352/12-CE dated 01.10.2012 (Annexure - "L") passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi with consequent restoration of OIA No. 71/2012(AHD-III)/K.ANPAZHAKAN/COMMR(A)/AHD dated 19.03.2012 and all benefits flowing from this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the petitioner Company, or in the alternative, an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division: Gandhinagar, the 2nd respondent herein to forthwith decide the rebate claims of the petitioner Company aggregating to Rs. 2,81,33,060/- for exports made in June, 2011 in accordance with law; [B] That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, holding and declaring that the petitioner's rebate claims were liable to be decided on merits and in accordance with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and be further pleased to direct the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, the 2nd Respondent herein, to decide the petitioner's rebate claims aggregating to Rs. 2,81,33,060/- accordingly;" 5. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the directions issued by the revisional authority in the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, to point out that the matter had been remanded for fresh decision taking into account the outcome of DGCEI investigation as well as the final decision in classification matter by common adjudicator CCE Vapi. Further, the applicability of condition 2(h) of Notification No. 19/04-CE (NT) was also to be examined. Reference was made to the communication dated 26.12.2012 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Gandhinagar addressed to the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Ahmedabad, calling upon him to intimate him about the outcome of the investigation pertaining to the petitioners. Further, the applicability of condition 2(h) of Notification No. 19/04-CE (NT) was also to be examined. Reference was made to the communication dated 26.12.2012 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Gandhinagar addressed to the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Ahmedabad, calling upon him to intimate him about the outcome of the investigation pertaining to the petitioners. The attention of the court was also invited to the communication dated 30.10.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner (Adj), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Silvassa addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Gandhinagar Division, Gandhinagar informing him that the show cause notice cum demand notice dated 05.12.2008 issued to M/s. Unicorn India (P) Ltd., Sikkim, which has been assigned to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi (Now Silvassa), has been transferred to call book and is still lying in the Call Book as the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36926 of 2012 filed by the Department is still pending before the Supreme Court. It was submitted that in the light of the pendency of the investigation by DGCEI as well as pendency of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the second respondent is not deciding the rebate claim of the petitioners pursuant to the order of remand. It was contended that once the rebate claim is filed, it is incumbent upon the concerned authorities to decide such claim on merits and that the authorities may reject the rebate claim if they do not think it proper to allow it, but they cannot keep it pending indefinitely. 5.1 The attention of the court was invited to the decision of the Sikkim High Court in the case of Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, 2013 (290) ELT 33 (Sikkim), to submit that it is the case of the respondents that M/s. Unicorn Industries is not entitled to exemption as it is manufacturing Pan Masala, whereas in the case pending before the Commissioner, Vapi, it is the case of the respondent that M/s. Unicorn Industries is not manufacturing Pan Masala. It was submitted that therefore, non-deciding the rebate claims of the petitioners on the ground of pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court demonstrates the height of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, inasmuch as, the proceedings before the Supreme Court would have no bearing on the facts of the present case. It was submitted that therefore, non-deciding the rebate claims of the petitioners on the ground of pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court demonstrates the height of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, inasmuch as, the proceedings before the Supreme Court would have no bearing on the facts of the present case. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, to the extent the revisional authority while remanding the matter for a fresh decision has directed the authority to take into account the outcome of DGCEI investigation and the final decision in classification matter by common adjudicator, CCE, Vapi, is required to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that it is in the light of the aforesaid directions issued by the revisional authority that the second respondent is not in a position to proceed further in the remand proceedings. It was, accordingly, urged that the petitions deserve to be allowed by setting aside the directions issued by the revisional authority while remanding the matter to the second respondent for fresh decision and that the second respondent is required to be directed to decide the rebate claims at the earliest, in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed the petitions on the ground that the challenge to the order dated 01.10.2012 is barred by delay and laches, inasmuch as, the order is passed in October, 2012, whereas the present petitions challenging the same have been filed in September, 2015, after a period of almost three years. It was submitted that the petitioners have acquiesced with the order of the Government and have submitted to the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority for fresh decision and have accepted the fact that the orders will have to be passed after considering the other proceedings referred to in the said order. It was submitted that the petitioners having acquiesced with the order passed by the revisional authority are now estopped from challenging the same. Commenting on the conduct of the petitioners, it was submitted that the investigation by DGCEI is complete and a show cause notice is issued to the petitioners on 02.01.2015 which is pending adjudication before the Commissioner, Central Excise, Vapi-III, which fact is not disclosed in the petitions and therefore, the petitions also suffer from the vice of suppression of material facts. Moreover, the outcome of the matter pending before the Commissioner, Vapi is required to be considered for the purpose of deciding the rebate claims. It was pointed out that another show cause notice dated 03.07.2014 has also been issued by DGCEI to M/s. Unicorn Industries for overpricing the product which is also pending adjudication and the outcome of all these proceedings is required to be taken into consideration while deciding the rebate claims. It was submitted that the second respondent is not in a position to decide the rebate claims for want of final outcome of DGCEI investigation as well as the final decision in classification matter by common adjudicator, CCE, Vapi in terms of the directions given by the revisional authority. 6.1 The learned counsel further submitted that in case the decision pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the DGCEI and the decision of the CCE, Vapi in the adjudication proceedings, are adverse to the petitioners, the interest of the revenue would be adversely affected and therefore, the interest of the revenue is required to be protected by not proceeding at this stage. Various other submissions also came to be advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue; however, considering the view that the court is inclined to take in the matter, it is not necessary to refer to or deal with the same having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the present petitions. 7. In this case, the impugned order is dated 1st October, 2012. Since the revisional authority had merely remanded the matter to the second respondent for a fresh decision, the petitioners did not deem it fit to challenge the same at the relevant time. However, having regard to the fact that though a period of three years has elapsed since then, the remanded proceedings have still not been concluded; the petitioners are constrained to approach this court by way of the present petitions seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. 8. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is evident that though by the impugned order dated 1st October, 2012, the revisional authority has remanded the matter to the second respondent for a fresh decision, at the same time it has also directed the second respondent to take into account the outcome of DGCEI investigation as well as the final decision in classification matter by a common adjudicator, Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi. Insofar as the DGCEI investigation is concerned, it is the case of the respondents that the investigation is complete and that a show cause notice has been issued in the matter, which is still pending adjudication. Insofar as the final decision in the classification matter by a common adjudicator viz., Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi is concerned, the communication dated 30.10.2015 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner (Adj), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Silvassa to the second respondent reveals that in view of the pendency of SLP against the judgement and order of the Sikkim High Court pending before the Supreme Court, the adjudication has been transferred to the Call Book and is lying in the Call Book. Thus, it appears that till the matter is decided by the Supreme Court, the concerned authority is not inclined to adjudicate the matter. In these circumstances, if the directions issued by the revisional authority are required to be strictly complied with, the petitioners' rebate claims would not be decided till the matter is decided by the Supreme Court and thereafter, by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Silvassa. 9. The facts as emerging from the record reveal that the petitioners have made rebate claims in June, 2011 which travelled up to the Government of India in revision and by the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, the matter was remanded to the second respondent for a fresh decision, however, subject to the directions issued in the said order. The second respondent, in the affidavit-in-reply filed in response of the averments made in the petition, has stated that since the issue is to be decided after considering the order of the Vapi Commissioner and DGCEI, which are still awaited, the matter cannot be determined by him. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-reply, he has further stated that since all these proceedings including proceedings by the DGCEI are pending and are not concluded and the same are connected proceedings and therefore, he is unable to take any decision regarding sanctioning of refund as no fresh decision can be taken without considering the outcome of the said proceedings. That as the allegations made in the show cause notices against the petitioner are pending adjudication, sanction of refund at this stage would adversely point fingers at the respondent. 10. That as the allegations made in the show cause notices against the petitioner are pending adjudication, sanction of refund at this stage would adversely point fingers at the respondent. 10. In the opinion of this court, having regard to the nature of the directions issued by the revisional authority in its order dated 01.10.2012, no fault can be found in the approach adopted by the second respondent in not deciding the rebate claim till the investigation by DGCEI is concluded and the CCE, Vapi decides the adjudication pending before him. However, the rebate claims of the petitioners which are filed way back in the year 2011 cannot be kept pending till the outcome of other proceedings. In the opinion of this court, each case has to be decided on the basis of the law and facts as prevailing at the relevant time. The claim cannot be kept pending indefinitely to await the decision in some other matter. While the order of the revisional authority, to the extent the case is remanded for verification is concerned, the same cannot be faulted with. But further verification could not have been contingent upon the outcome of the other proceedings, namely, the investigation by the DGCEI and the final decision in the classification matter by common adjudicator CCE, Vapi, more so, in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revenue has taken two contrary stands as regards classification of the product of Unicorn Industries. In the opinion of this court, when a case comes up before a quasi-judicial authority, it is bound to decide the same in accordance with law as per the situation as prevailing at the relevant time. An adjudicating authority cannot keep a matter in abeyance indefinitely to await the outcome of one proceeding after another. 11. As noted hereinabove, insofar as the investigation by the DGCEI is concerned, the same is concluded and a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners which is pending adjudication and may take its own time. Insofar as the proceeding before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi is concerned, the concerned authority has transferred the matter to the call-book to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the Department against the decision of the Sikkim High Court rendered in favour of M/s. Unicorn Industries. Insofar as the proceeding before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi is concerned, the concerned authority has transferred the matter to the call-book to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the Department against the decision of the Sikkim High Court rendered in favour of M/s. Unicorn Industries. In the opinion of this court, the rebate claim of the petitioners cannot be kept pending till the final outcome of the above proceedings and has to be decided in terms of the situation as prevailing presently. The revisional authority, namely, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, therefore, while remanding the matter for fresh decision, was not justified in directing the second respondent to take into account the outcome of DGCEI investigation as well as the final decision in classification matter by a common adjudicator, Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi. The revisional authority may have been justified in issuing directions to take into account the outcome of the DGCEI investigation as well as final decision in classification matter by a common adjudicator, Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi, had the same already been decided on the date when the matter came to be remanded. However, since the investigation by DGCEI and the classification matter before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi, were still pending on the date of the impugned order, no order could have been passed to decide the refund claim on the basis of proceedings which were to be decided in future. In other words, the rebate claims could not have been made contingent on the outcome of the said proceedings which were to be decided at a future date. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned order, to the extent the same is made contingent upon the outcome of DGCEI investigation as well as the final decision in classification matter by a common adjudicator, Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi, cannot be sustained. 12. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue that in case the decision pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the DGCEI as well as the decision of the CCE, Vapi in the adjudication proceedings are adverse to the petitioners, the interest of the revenue would be adversely affected, and hence, the rebate claims are required to be kept in abeyance, are required to be stated only to be rejected for the reasons stated hereinabove. 13. 13. As regards the contention that the challenge to the impugned order is barred by limitation, estoppel and acquiescence, in the opinion of this court considering the approach of the DGCEI in not concluding the investigation for a considerable period of time and the conduct of the CCE, Vapi in sending the matter to the Call Book to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the Supreme Court, no fault can be found in the conduct of the petitioner in waiting for a reasonable time for the remanded proceedings to be concluded and then challenging the same in the light of the above facts. For this reason, the above contention does not merit acceptance. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are allowed to the following extent: The impugned common order No. 1351-1352/12-CX dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi is hereby set aside to the extent the same directs the second respondent to take into account the outcome of DGCEI investigation as well as the final decision in classification matter by a common adjudicator, Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi. Consequently, the second respondent authority is directed to decide the rebate claims of the petitioners pursuant to the order of remand, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It would be open for the second respondent to take into account all material as available with him for the purpose of deciding the rebate claims. 15. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent in both the petitions with no order as to costs.