Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (10) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4,25,329/-, the Commissioner levied a penalty of Rs. 3.00 lacs. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal captioned above. He also filed an application for stay of collection and pleaded for waiver of dispensation of pre-deposit of excise duty of Rs. 4.25 lacs and penalty of Rs. 3.00 lacs. The Registry has given a defect memo stating that the order disposes of 7 show cause notices and therefore there should be seven separate appeals. 2. Shri Ragesh S. Mehta, the ld. Counsel for the applicant argued before us that the impugned order is only one. Therefore only one appeal need to be filed. There need not be any seven appeals. He further stated, that in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has levied a penalty of Rs. 3. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nch in the case of M.I. Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 868, in para 4 thereof that Bench of the Tribunal had held as follows : 4. We observe from the above that while a show cause notice is not an order but the same when it is adjudicated results in an order. The term order" as such has not been defined under Central Excises Salt Act and even the Customs Act. However, we observe that in respect of requirements of a number of provisions in the two enactments authorities vested with quasi judicial powers are called upon to pass orders or take decisions. Before any order against any appellant is passed or any permission sought under the statute is denied or a claim made is turned down, the law requires the issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o the order as above then the appellants are required to file one appeal. To our mind this argument appears rather specious. The status of an order cannot be determined by the circumstances of an authority given one serial number or the serial numbers equal to the number of show cause notices, covered by the order. We observe that once a show cause notice has been issued the disposal of the same would result in an order or a decision and it is this order or a decision on a show cause notice which can be the subject matter of appeal. Dealing with a number of show cause notices compendiously be a common order does not mean that no separate order on each of the show cause notices exists. The common order passed can be taken to be incorporating .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... even referring to the same the East Regional Bench in Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta-II - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 615 have referred the matter to Larger Bench stating that earlier judgment of the Tribunal in Ekantika Copiers v. Collector (supra) has been wrongly decided and the matter has to be referred to the Larger Bench for final determination. However, we have before us one decision of the South Regional Bench namely M.I. Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 868 wherein it has been held that when several show cause notices have been decided by equal number of orders, same number of appeals should be filed. However, we have to state that in the impugned order at last para it has been held as follows : .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id judgment of the East Regional Bench in the case of Alliance Mills (Lessees) (supra) is only a referring order to the Larger Bench and it does not finally determine any issue. Moreover, one point needs consideration and mention here. The learned Counsel argued that he cannot apportion the penalty levied namely Rs. 3.00 lacs to various appeals. In our view, this argument cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the trouble is not unsurmountable. There can be a specific reference to the difficulty in apportioning penalty amount in EA-3 form at a particular column stating that they are unable to apportion the same for all the appeals and then make a suitable prayer to the Tribunal seeking directions on that. The Tribunal then will definitely pass sui .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates