2013 (9) TMI 844 - HC - Central Excise

Acceptance and adjudication of Appeal Permission to File Separate Appeal Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the opinion that two separate appeals were required to be filed and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was considering the appeal already preferred, treating it as challenging the Order-in-Original No.62/2012-13. Without further entering into the larger question whether Rule 6A of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 would be applicable to the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) or not, in the instant case, if the petitioner prefers separate appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) against the Order-in-Original arising out of show cause notice dated 16.11.2011 within the period of two weeks from today, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the same in accordance with law and on merits along with the appeal arising out of the Order-in-Original without raising the objection with respect to the limitation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6A of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 regarding filing of appeals.
2. Whether a common appeal filed against two separate Orders-in-Original is valid before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to accept and adjudicate the appeal against a show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) refused to consider the appeal against one of the two Orders-in-Original, stating that separate appeals were required for each. The petitioner argued that a common appeal should suffice, citing Rule 6A of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Revenue contended that Rule 6A is applicable only to the appellate Tribunal, not the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Court, after hearing both parties, decided that irrespective of the applicability of Rule 6A to the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner could file a separate appeal against the Order-in-Original not covered in the initial appeal. The Court directed the petitioner to file this separate appeal within two weeks, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to decide both appeals without raising objections regarding limitation. This resolution allowed the petitioner to address the issue of separate Orders-in-Original through the filing of a new appeal within the specified timeframe.

3. The judgment clarified the procedure for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) in cases involving multiple Orders-in-Original. It emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules while also ensuring that parties are not unduly prejudiced by technicalities. By permitting the petitioner to file a separate appeal within a specified period, the Court struck a balance between procedural requirements and the need for substantive justice in the adjudication of tax matters. The decision provided a practical solution to the issue at hand, allowing for a fair consideration of the petitioner's case before the Commissioner (Appeals).