9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, well in time, these appeals may be considered as supplementary appeals and accordingly may be taken on record. Shri Narasimha Murthy, ld. DR made an alternative prayer for admitting these appeals on the ground that there was no necessity to file as many appeals against the same impugned order in view of the wordings of Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He said that Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes only one application is required to be filed as against an order of the Commissioner under review. Sub-section (4) of Section 35E is reproduced below for ready reference :- "35E(4) Where in pursuance of order under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) the adjudicating authority or the authorized officer ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants in these appeals were not made as parties in the main appeal. If the Department has filed one composite appeal consisting of all the parties the position would have been different and in that context, these appeals would have been treated as supplementary appeals. That is not the case here. For the first time, the Revenue/Department is filing fresh appeals making Directors as parties in these appeals. There was no whisper about these parties in the appeal filed by the Revenue. That appeal was restricted to only one party. He also said that precisely this was the view of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Azo Dye Chem reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 201 (Tri-LB). The Counsel drew our attention to Para 8 of the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d they were required to be examined in appeal, therefore, the list was sufficient and one composite appeal served the purpose. In regard to issue of summons, we note that had the appeals come up for hearing, summons would have gone to all the parties mentioned in the list. We have also perused the case law cited and relied upon by both the sides. We have considered the various arguments adduced. We note that in the present case, filing of supplementary appeals was procedural inasmuch as the composite appeal was self-contained. It was not only in respect of one individual, but it was a challenge of the decisions on allegations contained in Part I of the Show Cause Notice vide Adjudication Order No. 22/1991." The said decision has no applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
