1997 (10) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against orders passed by Collector (Appeals) involving 49 pricelists; Whether one appeal is sufficient or 49 appeals are required; Determination of assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Separate causes of action for each pricelist; Requirement to file separate appeals based on the number of pricelists involved.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) involving 49 pricelists. The appellant argued that only one appeal was necessary as there was one show cause notice and one order-in-original. The respondent, however, contended that as per practice, 49 appeals should be filed, one for each pricelist.

2. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the appellant had filed multiple pricelists over different years for determination of assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Show cause notices were issued due to additional charges collected by the appellant, leading to the need for separate appeals for each pricelist.

3. It was established that each pricelist constituted a separate cause of action, and therefore, each pricelist needed to be dealt with individually considering the additional charges collected. The Tribunal emphasized that each pricelist gives rise to a distinct cause of action, necessitating the filing of appeals corresponding to the number of pricelists involved.

4. Referring to past cases, where separate appeals were required for each Bill of Entry, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of addressing each cause of action separately. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument that one appeal was sufficient, emphasizing the need for multiple appeals based on the number of pricelists involved.

5. Following the precedent set by previous orders, the Tribunal directed the appellant to file 48 more appeals with COD applications by a specified date. Failure to do so would result in the current appeal being treated as covering a specific pricelist, requiring the appellant to choose which pricelist to challenge in the appeal.

6. The Tribunal set a deadline for the additional appeals to be filed and scheduled a follow-up hearing. The judgment underscored the importance of addressing each pricelist as a separate cause of action, thereby necessitating the filing of multiple appeals in accordance with the number of pricelists involved.