1997 (10) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether multiple appeals need to be filed for each show cause notice covered under a single order-in-original.
- Whether a penalty levied in a consolidated manner can be apportioned in separate appeals.
- The applicability of previous judgments in determining the filing of multiple appeals.

Analysis:

1. Filing of Multiple Appeals: The main issue before the tribunal was whether separate appeals need to be filed for each show cause notice covered under a single order-in-original. The appellant argued that since the impugned order was consolidated, only one appeal should suffice. The tribunal referred to various precedents, including the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. & Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bombay-II, and the case of Ekantika Copiers (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. The tribunal noted that while there were conflicting decisions on this matter, the judgment in Ekantika Copiers was still in force. The tribunal ultimately held that as long as the judgment in Ekantika Copiers was valid, separate appeals should be filed for each show cause notice.

2. Apportionment of Penalty: Another issue raised was whether a penalty levied in a consolidated manner could be apportioned in separate appeals. The appellant argued that they were unable to apportion the penalty amount in the appeals due to the nature of the order. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the difficulty in apportioning the penalty was not insurmountable. The tribunal suggested that the appellant could specifically mention the issue in the appeal form and seek directions from the tribunal on how to proceed. Ultimately, the tribunal held that separate appeals should be filed for each show cause notice, including the penalty issue.

3. Applicability of Previous Judgments: The tribunal considered various judgments, including the case of M.I. Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector and the case of Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta-II. While there were conflicting decisions among different regional benches, the tribunal emphasized that the judgment in Ekantika Copiers was still valid and needed to be followed. The tribunal also clarified that the judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. & Co. Ltd. was not followed as it did not consider the precedent set by Ekantika Copiers. Ultimately, the tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments and directed them to file separate appeals for each show cause notice, along with applications for condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the tribunal held that separate appeals must be filed for each show cause notice covered under a single order-in-original, even if the order is consolidated. The tribunal also clarified that penalties levied in a consolidated manner should be apportioned in separate appeals. The decision was based on the precedence set by the judgment in Ekantika Copiers and the need to follow established legal principles in such matters.