1999 (12) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of filing multiple appeals against a combined order disposing of multiple show cause notices (SCNs).
2. Interpretation of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Applicability of judgments under the Income Tax Act to cases under the Central Excise Act.
4. The impact of the recent amendment to the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of filing multiple appeals against a combined order disposing of multiple SCNs:
The primary issue was whether a single appeal is sufficient when an adjudicating authority issues a combined order addressing multiple SCNs. The appellant argued that a single appeal should be valid under the Central Excise Act, 1944, while the Department contended that separate appeals were necessary for each SCN. The Tribunal examined previous decisions, including the ERB's decision in Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. v. C.C.E., which supported the filing of a single appeal, and the SRB's decision in M.I. Metal Sections (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., which required multiple appeals.

2. Interpretation of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act allows an aggrieved person to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by specified authorities. The Tribunal analyzed this provision and compared it to Section 246(1) of the Income Tax Act, which had been interpreted by various High Courts to allow a single appeal against a combined order. The Tribunal concluded that Section 35B(1) does not explicitly require multiple appeals for a combined order addressing multiple SCNs.

3. Applicability of judgments under the Income Tax Act to cases under the Central Excise Act:
The Tribunal considered judgments from the Bombay High Court (C.I.T. v. Hansa Agencies), Gujarat High Court (Patel & Co. v. C.I.T.), and Patna High Court (C.I.T. v. K.H. Pandeya) under the Income Tax Act. These judgments supported the principle that a single appeal is permissible unless explicitly prohibited by law. The Tribunal found these principles applicable to the Central Excise Act, reinforcing the view that a single appeal against a combined order is valid.

4. The impact of the recent amendment to the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
The Tribunal noted the recent amendment to the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which introduced Rule 6A. This rule explicitly allows a single appeal against a combined order dealing with multiple SCNs. The Tribunal observed that this amendment confirmed the view that a single appeal is sufficient, aligning with the principles established in previous judgments and the statutory interpretation of Section 35B.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that a single appeal is sufficient when an adjudicating authority issues a combined order addressing multiple SCNs. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, relevant judgments under the Income Tax Act, and the recent amendment to the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The Tribunal disagreed with the SRB's decision in M.I. Metal Sections (P) Ltd. and upheld the view taken in the Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. case, thereby allowing a single appeal against a combined order.