2003 (2) TMI 138 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeals filed by Revenue, delay in filing appeals, consideration as supplementary appeals, necessity of multiple appeals against same order, Rule 6A of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.

Delay in Filing Appeals: The Department argued that since a single appeal was filed in time against a common order, the additional appeals should be treated as supplementary appeals. The Departmental Representative highlighted Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which states that only one application is required to be filed against an order. However, the respondents contended that the additional appeals cannot be treated as supplementary since the appellants were not parties in the main appeal. The respondents referred to a previous case to support their argument that separate appeals were necessary when different parties were involved.

Rule 6A of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules: The Department argued that Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules allows for filing one appeal in respect of one Order-in-Original, regardless of the number of parties involved. However, the respondents pointed out Rule 6A(2) which states that if an order pertains to more than one person, each aggrieved person must file a separate appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals could not be considered as supplementary appeals and rejected the Department's request to change the cause title in the main appeal. Due to the inordinate delay in filing the appeals and the lack of sufficient cause shown by the Department, the applications to condone the delay were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.