1998 (4) TMI 329 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Supplementary Appeals.
2. Legality of the Collector's Order Dropping Allegations.
3. Requirement of Filing Separate Appeals for Each Respondent.

Summary:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Supplementary Appeals

These are 17 Applications for condonation of delay in filing the supplementary appeals, with a delay of about 3 years and 11 months. The delay is attributed to the Department not filing separate appeals initially, with no intentional delay or disregard of rules intended. The Tribunal noted that the filing of supplementary appeals was procedural, and condonation of delay is formal. The Tribunal has consistently held that filing supplementary appeals is a procedural matter, and thus, the delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.

Issue 2: Legality of the Collector's Order Dropping Allegations

The Collector of Central Excise, in Order-in-Original No. 22/1991, dropped allegations in Part I of the Show Cause Notice and demanded duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, from M/s. New Tobacco Company Limited. The Central Board of Excise and Customs reviewed this order and directed the Collector to apply to the Tribunal for the correct determination of whether the Collector's order was legally correct and proper, and whether the Tribunal should set aside the Collector's order and confirm the full demand of Central Excise duty and impose an appropriate penalty.

Issue 3: Requirement of Filing Separate Appeals for Each Respondent

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that only one appeal was necessary against the single Order-in-Original, making all 18 respondents parties to the case. The Tribunal had required filing as many appeals as there were parties for administrative convenience. The Tribunal noted that the adjudication order was one, and the review was in respect of the decision on allegations contained in Part I of the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, all parties against whom allegations were mentioned in Part I of the Show Cause Notice became relevant. The Tribunal held that the filing of supplementary appeals was procedural, and the delay in filing these appeals is condoned.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the 17 supplementary appeals, emphasizing that the filing of supplementary appeals was a procedural requirement. The Tribunal also noted that the review by the Central Board of Excise and Customs was in respect of the entire adjudication order, making all parties involved relevant. The Tribunal's consistent view is that filing supplementary appeals is procedural, and thus, the delay is formally condoned.