ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred by Manoj Kumar Sharma, who is non-resident Indian and presently having residence in Dubai, assailing the order dated 13.4.2018 passed by revisional authority i.e. Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments on two points. One is that under challenge before the revisional authority was the order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeal), Jaipur (in short “the appellate authority”). The revision petition filed by the Revenue has been decided by the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 against the assessee ex parte. As per the impugned order, the matter was fixed for personal hearing on 9.3.2018 and 4.4.2018. The revisional authority has in para 3 of the impugned order also recorded that no one appeared for the applicant or the respondent for personal hearing in any of these dates. The copy of the aforesaid order has been forwarded to the petitioner at his incorrect Sikar address namely Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, 2/1203, Sheikh Pura Mohalla, Ward No.26, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332001 whereas the correct address of the petitioner is Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o S/o Bhagirath Sharma C/o Dr. Rajesh Sharma Pioneer Hospital Near Tapariya Bagichi Station Road, Sikar (Raj.). It is this address which the petitioner has given in original by the appellate authority in the order dated 24.2.2015 and challenged before the revisional authority. 3. Learned counsel argued that the order aforesaid was not only challenged by the petitioner but was also challenged by the revenue in separate revision petition. The revisional authority ought to have therefore decided both the revision applications together. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi & ors. Vs. International Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 250 and Expo- Fyn Electricals & Electronics Vs. 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. 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 pending 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 argued that the respondents were unaware of the revision petition filed by the petitioner, 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 appreciate the rival submissions and possibility of conflicting findings on the same issues would be avoided. The revisional authority was therefore, required to decide both the revision petitions together after notice to petitioner on his correct address. 7. In that event, the appellate/revisional authority would be in a better position to appreciate the rival submissions and possibility of conflicting findings on the same issues would be avoided. The revisional authority was therefore, required to decide 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 persuaded 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 notice to the petitioner on his correct address. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.