JUDGMENT By the Court.—This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 29.11.2016 on the following questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in disposing the appeal and granting liberty to the Appellant to come again after having final verdict from Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the matter is sub-judice before Hon’ble Supreme Court, when the order dated 9.11.2009 of coordinate bench of Tribunal, Bangalore and order dated 25.7.2011 passed by division bench of this Hon’ble Court, has not been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.? 2. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in not following the coordinate bench order dated 9.11.2009 of Tribunal, Bangalore in Appellant’s case itself, which is based on same facts, same investigation and same evidences and which has not been stayed by Hon’ble Apex Court till date? 3. Whether the impugned order passed by Tribunal is in teeth of the order passed by division bench of this Hon’ble Court in Central Excise Appeal No. 34 of 2011 (M/s Xerox India Ltd. v. CCE) wherein Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law, which has not been stayed by Hon’ble Apex Court till date? 4. Whether the impugned order passed by Tribunal is without jurisdiction, in as much as Tribunal has no power to dispose of the appeal granting liberty to approach again, within the prescribed time, if advised so, that too without dealing with any grounds of appeal?” 2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier the assessee had been visited by two adjudication orders involving similar controversy. One by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut dated 28.11.2008 and the other by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Hyderabad dated 28.3.2008. Under both those orders demands had been created against the assessee treating its activity to be of manufacture of photocopier machines etc. 3. One by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut dated 28.11.2008 and the other by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Hyderabad dated 28.3.2008. Under both those orders demands had been created against the assessee treating its activity to be of manufacture of photocopier machines etc. 3. While the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 9.11.2009 had set aside the order in the original passed by the Commissioner Central Excise Hyderabad dated 28.3.2008 and thus deleted the demand treating the activity of the assessee to be not of manufacture, however, a coordinate Bench of the same Tribunal at Delhi, vide its order dated 30.11.2010 had taken opposite view and held the activity of the assessee to be of manufacture and had thus upheld the duty liability etc. 4. Being aggrieved by the view taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal to the extent that bench neither distinguished the order of the coordinate Bangalore Bench nor it referred the matter to the larger bench, the appellant approached this Court by means of the Central Excise Appeal No. 34 of 2011 which was decided vide judgment dated 25.7.2011 wherein it was held as below: “11. We have considered the respectful submissions, and find that there are contrary opinions expressed by the Tribunals on the same facts and evidence, which were placed before them. Even if the CESTAT, New Delhi did not agree with the reasoning given by the CESTAT, Bangalore, in similar proceedings on the same facts, it should have followed the practice of referring the matter to a Larger Bench. Apart from institutional integrity, we also find that the same Company, in respect of same period in the same activities, could not be subjected to different opinions expressed by the Tribunal, causing doubts and confusion over the liability. Such conflicting opinions by different benches of the Tribunal are not conducive to business and trade and can cause adverse effect on the economy of the country. 13. For the reasons given above, we set aside the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 30.11.2010 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law. 13. For the reasons given above, we set aside the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 30.11.2010 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law. If the bench of CESTAT, New Delhi does not agree with the reasons given by the CESTAT, Bangalore in its order dated 9.11.2009, it may refer the matter to the President of the Tribunal to be referred to a Larger Bench.” 5. Upon the matter being thus remitted to the Tribunal, it has not decided the appeal on merits. It has now passed the impugned order wherein it has taken note of the earlier judgment of this Court (in Central Excise Appeal No. 34 of 2011 decided on 25.7.2011) the Tribunal has observed that since that earlier judgment of this Court is under challenge pending before the Supreme Court in Special Appeal No. 6895-97 of 2012 and that the same has been tagged with another Civil Appeal No. 19252 of 2011 filed by the revenue against the order of the Bangalore Bench dated 9.11.2009. 6. Thereupon, the Tribunal has disposed of the appeal leaving it open to the assessee to approach it again after having final verdict from Hon’ble Supreme Court, within the prescribe time, if so advised. 7. We have heard Sri M.P. Devnath alongwith Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the assessee and Ms. Anjana Singh, learned counsel for the revenue. Since the matter is short, involving issue of non-compliance of earlier directions issued by this Court and since admittedly the Tribunal has not rendered any decision on merits, we have, with consent of parties taken up this appeal for disposal at the fresh stage itself. 8. It has been contended by Sri M.P. Devnath, learned counsel for the assessee that this Court having set aside the earlier order of the Tribunal and having issued specific directions to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law with further observation that if the bench of Tribunal does not agree with the earlier pronouncement of the Bangalore Bench dated 9.11.2009 it may refer the matter to the President of the Tribunal for consideration by a larger bench, it was no longer open to the Tribunal to avoid decision on the merits of the matter. 9. 9. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the assessee. 10. Once the specific directions had been issued by this Court, which direction has not been shown to have stayed or set aside by the Supreme Court, it was no longer open to the Tribunal to not comply with the same. 11. At any rate, it cannot be accepted that in the matter of statutory appeal the Tribunal vested the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter finally may, while dealing with an appeal duly maintainable before instead of deciding it on merits, wash its hands of it by making observation such as made in instant case-granting liberty to the parties to approach again when the cause of action had clearly arisen in the present and appeal had matured for adjudication. 12. Appeals take time to mature for hearing before appellate forums like the CESTAT that have long list of pending cases. It would reflect poorly on the system if a litigant who has waited for years to get his appeal heard and decided finally, is sent out of the queue, like it has been done in this case. 13. Courts and Adjudicatory authorities like the Tribunal are meant to, wherever possible, bring final closure to disputes between the parties and are definitely not intended to pass orders, that may itself lead to needless litigation as has been done twice in this case. 14. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remitting the matter back to it to decide it afresh in accordance with law, in compliance of the earlier directions issued by this Court in its judgment in Central Excise Appeal No. 34 of 2011 decided on 25.7.2011. The Tribunal shall, for reasons aforestated, may decide the appeal on merits, expeditiously, if possible within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The questions of law raised are answered accordingly. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed.