1999 (8) TMI 423 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) remanding Price Lists for de novo consideration.
2. Jurisdiction of the Collector (Appeals) to entertain Review Appeal.
3. Merger of the order of the Asstt. Collector with the Order-in-Appeal.

Issue 1:
The appeal stemmed from the Collector (Appeals) remanding Price Lists approved by the Asstt. Collector for de novo consideration due to non-speaking approval. The appellants contended that the approval was non-speaking and challenged an endorsement imposed by the Asstt. Collector. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal, prompting the Department to file an appeal before the Tribunal. However, during this time, the Asstt. Collector filed another appeal seeking annulment of the approved Price Lists. The impugned order arose from this appeal.

Issue 2:
The appellants argued that the Collector (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Review Appeal as the Asstt. Collector's order had merged into the first Order-in-Appeal, which was already under appeal before the Tribunal. They contended that the Collector (Appeals) had no legal basis to entertain the second appeal, especially when the same matter was pending before the Tribunal. The appellants also referenced a Final Order by the Tribunal in related appeals, which favored them, further supporting their position.

Issue 3:
Regarding the merger of the Asstt. Collector's order with the Order-in-Appeal, the Tribunal referred to a case law precedent where it was held that when an Appellate Authority entertains an appeal and deals with it on merits, the original authority's order merges with the Appellate Authority's order. In this case, the Appellate Collector had entertained the appeal, leading to a subsequent appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the doctrine of merger applied, rendering the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) as not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.