9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., Pithampur, Distt. Dhar (M.P.) in whose Appeal [No. E/1291/95-NB (DB)] also a similar issue had arisen. These two matters were therefore taken up together for disposal. 3. None appeared for M/s. Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. despite notice issued to them on 1-10-1999. M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. were represented by Shri S. Madhavan, ld. Chartered Accountant. The Department was represented by Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, JDR. 4. Shri S. Madhavan, ld. Chartered Accountant submitted that M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. had filed an Appeal [No. E/1291/95-NB (DB)] before this Tribunal (Delhi Branch) against the Order-in-Original of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore dated 31-12-1994 by which the Commissioner had disposed of duty demands arising from 32 show cause notices issued to the assessee involving common questions. When this appeal was listed before the Tribunal on 28-7-1997, according to the ld. Chartered Accountant, the Hon'ble Bench had on a suo motu basis, directed the appellants to file as many appeals as there were show cause notices which had culminated in the single adjudication order passed by Commissioner, though bearing multiple numbers. Ld. Chart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n would fully apply to cases under the Central Excise Act also. 6. Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue in the two Appeals argued for the upholding of the view taken by the SRB in M.L Metal Sections case (supra). He also relied on the Tribunal decision in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bombay-II reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 429. 7. We have considered the submissions and the case law cited before us and have perused the records of both the cases. 8. Relevant extracts (relevant for the present proceedings) of Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner in Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. case are as under : "This is an appeal filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original of the Asstt. Collector confirming the demands raised through 36 Nos. of show cause notices on payment of cess duty on jute yarn, sacks and hessians captively consumed in the manufacture of jute bags. In course of adjudication the appellant argued that demands against serial No. 1 to 13 of the Annexure to the Order-in-Original related to cess on hessian and sacking cloth captively consumed in the manufacture of bags, which was not leviable m terms of CEGAT's judgment in the case of M/s. Chittavalarah J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections case on the ground that in the M.I. Metal Sections case 36 SCNs has been disposed of by one common order, though only one number had been given in the common adjudication Order. In the case of Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd., on the other hand, the adjudication order had individually dealt with and discussed each of the 36 SCNs though the order was a combined and consolidated one. Therefore, the ERB of the Tribunal had taken the view that one composite appeal would suffice and no separate appeals for each of the 36 SCNs need to be filed before the Tribunal. 9.Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules. The relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as follows : "SECTION 35B. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. - (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order - (a) a decision or order passed by the [Commissioner of Central Excise] as an adjudicating authority; (b) an order passed by the [Commissioner (Appeals)] under Section 35A; (c) ............." 10As would be seen from the above, Section 35B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the observations made by the ERB in the Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. order [M-337/Cal/95 - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 615 (Tribunal)] in which case also the said decisions had been cited and relied upon. The earlier Full Bench (majority) decision of the Tribunal in Ekantika Copiers (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1991 (56) E.L.T. 350 (T)] was distinguished on facts by the Bench. In Ekantika case it was held that as many appeals as there were Orders-in-Orignal have to be filed before the Tribunal under Section 35B of Central Excise Act. The ERB in the Alliance Mills case had distinguished the Larger Bench decision in Ekantika Copiers case on the basis of facts. In the Ekantika Copiers case there were 13 Orders-in-Original and 13 appeals had been filed before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) had disposed of all the 13 Appeals by a common order. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that the mere fact that a common order had been passed by the Collector (Appeals) on the 13 Orders-in-Original cannot be a ground for filing a single appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the majority of the Members of the Larger Bench took the view that the appellants should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sofar as the appellant is concerned. In case an impugned order is in respect of more than one persons, each aggrieved person will be required to file a separate appeal (and common appeals or joint appeals shall not be entertained)." 13. However, neither side raised the question of retrospective nature of the said amendment. 14. We observe that the view adopted in SRB decision in M.I. Metal Sections (P) Ltd. (and relied on by the ld. JDR) is to the effect that though it may be competent for the lower Authority for the sake of expediency - to pass one compendious order covering more than one show cause notice dealing with a number of different matters, the very fact that there were separate SCNs showed that lis lie in the context of separate parameters and the issues reflected in each of the SCNs need to be decided in the context of the parameters governing each SCN. Since each SCN culminates in an order or a decision - either in favour of the assessee or against him - the adjudicating/appellate authority passing an order on each of the SCNs has to apply his mind to the facts as set out in each of the SCNs, even if the authority chooses to pass a single order on a number of SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
