2013 (11) TMI 707 - AT - Service Tax

Separate appeal for Separate show cause notice Held that - Following EICHER MOTORS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE 1999 (12) TMI 87 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI There was no bar in the Act or in the Rules to the passing of consolidated orders by the adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority - a single appeal filed against an order cannot be held to be irregular only for the reason that the order had dealt with more than one show cause notice - one appeal against the order would suffice.

Summary

Issues:
Appellants issued show cause notices for filing one more appeal in each case due to impugned order dealing with two show cause notices.

Analysis:
The judgment delves into the issue of whether multiple show cause notices necessitate filing separate appeals or if one appeal would suffice. Rule 6A of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules is highlighted, emphasizing that despite the number of notices dealt with in the order, a single Memorandum of Appeal suffices. This rule, post-amendment, clarifies the procedure for filing appeals. The judgment references a previous case, Eicher Motors Ltd., where a Larger Bench of the Tribunal concluded that there is no prohibition on passing consolidated orders by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, filing a single appeal against such an order is not irregular, even if it addresses multiple show cause notices. The Tribunal's ruling establishes that the impugned show cause notice lacks merit and is discharged based on the legal position elucidated in the judgment.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment elucidates the interpretation and application of Rule 6A of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules in the context of filing appeals concerning multiple show cause notices. The reference to the precedent set by the Eicher Motors Ltd. case further solidifies the Tribunal's stance on the matter, providing clarity on the procedural requirements for appeals in such scenarios.