2006 (8) TMI 469 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Conflict of opinion on filing one appeal based on the number of orders-in-appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses a conflict of opinion regarding the filing of one appeal based on the number of orders-in-appeal. The Hon'ble Registrar referred the matter due to differing views in previous cases. The Larger Bench, in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore, held that when a compendious order disposes of multiple Show Cause Notices (SCNs), only one appeal is required for higher authority. This principle applies to both Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal stages, as supported by previous court decisions. The judgment emphasizes that as long as the law does not prohibit filing a single appeal from a comprehensive order, there is no issue with appealing to the Tribunal from an order addressing multiple SCNs.

The judgment further clarifies that a single appeal against such an order is not irregular, even if it covers more than one SCN. The recent amendment to CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, specifically Rule 6A, reinforces the perspective of the Larger Bench. It is highlighted that in cases where there is a conflict between a Larger Bench decision and a judgment by a Bench with fewer members, the Larger Bench's view prevails. Therefore, in the present case where an appeal was filed against an order concerning two SCNs, considered a compendious order by the Larger Bench, a single appeal is deemed valid. The Registry is instructed to proceed accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment resolves the conflict of opinion by affirming the principle established by the Larger Bench that a single appeal suffices when an order addresses multiple SCNs. It provides clarity on the procedural aspect of filing appeals in such scenarios, emphasizing the precedence of the Larger Bench's decisions in resolving conflicts within the Tribunal.