2006 (8) TMI 592 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

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

Analysis:
The matter was referred to the Tribunal due to a perceived conflict of opinion regarding the filing of appeals based on the number of order-in-appeal. The Registrar believed that separate appeals were required based on previous decisions, while a larger bench decision disagreed with this view. The larger bench, in the case of 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 to be filed. This principle applies regardless of whether the compendious order was passed at the stage of Order-in-Original or Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as the Act or Rules do not prohibit filing a single appeal from a compendious order, there is no objection to filing one appeal before the higher Appellate Authority. The Tribunal rejected the majority opinion in previous cases and upheld the view that one appeal to the Tribunal is sufficient when the impugned order is one, irrespective of the number of SCNs involved.

The Tribunal further clarified that filing a single appeal against an order dealing with multiple SCNs is not irregular. The recent amendment to the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, specifically the insertion of Rule 6A, supported the larger bench's perspective. The Tribunal concluded that in cases where there is a conflict between a larger bench decision and a judgment by a bench with fewer members, the view of the larger bench prevails. Therefore, in the present case where an appeal was filed against an order related to two SCNs, considered a compendious order by the Larger Bench, a single appeal is deemed maintainable. The Registry was directed to proceed accordingly.

This judgment clarifies the legal position on filing appeals based on compendious orders disposing of multiple SCNs. It establishes that a single appeal suffices in such cases, aligning with the principle that the number of SCNs involved does not necessitate multiple appeals. The decision provides clarity on the procedural aspect of filing appeals before higher Appellate Authorities, emphasizing the importance of considering the nature of the impugned order rather than the number of SCNs addressed.