9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) passed a common order-in-appeal disposed of the appeals covering 13 Bills of Entry; therefore, as per Rule 6(A) ibid the Appellant-Revenue is required to file 13 appeals challenging each Bill of Entry which is an assessment order in itself. We find that the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of CMR Nikkie India Pvt Ltd [ 2021 (6) TMI 270 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has also interpreted Rule 6(A) and has held that the number of appeals which the department is required to file, will be equivalent to the number of Bills of Entry filed by the importer/assessee. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. Revenue is directed to file 13 appeals instead of one appeal, if they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments, the learned Counsel for the respondent raises the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the one appeal filed by the Revenue against 13 Bills of Entry. He further submits that the importer/respondent had preferred separate appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of each Bill of Entry and the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the said appeals filed by the importer/respondent in respect of the assessment of 13 Bills of Entry by way of one Order-in-Appeal. He further submits that the Department ought to have filed separate appeals for each Bill of Entry. 4.2 He further submits that Explanation to Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 mandates that in a case where the impugned Order-in-Appeal has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court as well as the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ekantika Copiers (P) Ltd (supra) and also fails to consider that the nature of the instructions issued by Ministry of Finance/CBIC to the Commissioners and other officers which is mandatory in nature and is not merely directory. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue relies on the Interim/Miscellaneous Order passed by the New Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE CGST, Jaipur-I vs. Century Metal Recycling Private Limited (supra). 6. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, in the present case, we are only deciding the preliminary objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one appeal is sufficient; however as per the Explanation of the Rule 6(A) ibid, it is clear that when more than one order-in-original are passed, then appellant or assessee is required to file numbers of appeals as many as numbers of order-in-original. But in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed a common order-in-appeal disposed of the appeals covering 13 Bills of Entry; therefore, as per Rule 6(A) ibid the Appellant-Revenue is required to file 13 appeals challenging each Bill of Entry which is an assessment order in itself. 8. Further, we find that the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of CMR Nikkie India Pvt Ltd (supra) has also interpreted Rule 6(A) and has held that the number of appeals which the department is required to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
