As per case facts, the Petitioner, a company with SEZ and DTA units, sought duty drawback for electricity used in manufacturing, having reversed Input Tax Credit (ITC) as directed by ... an Appellate Authority. The Assistant Commissioner then sanctioned a partial drawback. Aggrieved by certain adjustments and denial of interest, the Petitioner appealed again. The Customs Department also appealed, arguing no drawback should be sanctioned due to ITC availment. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned Order, set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, denying the drawback altogether by re-examining the ITC issue, which had already been settled by a higher Appellate Authority and accepted by the Department. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging this order as perverse and beyond jurisdiction. The question arose whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had the competence and jurisdiction to nullify a prior, final appellate order of a superior authority in a subsequent appeal concerning a consequential order, particularly when the department had accepted the initial appellate decision. Finally, the High Court held that the impugned Order was flawed and without jurisdiction, as the Commissioner (Appeals) could not revisit an issue already settled by a higher Appellate Authority that had attained finality and was accepted by the department. The Court emphasized that such actions contradict the doctrine of functus officio and res judicata, leading to perpetual litigation. The impugned Order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration in light of the High Court's observations.