Tribunal denies refund for single appeal against two orders, citing need for separate appeals

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's misc. application seeking a refund of court fee paid for filing a single appeal against two Orders-in-Original. Relying on the ruling in Ekantika Copiers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, the Tribunal held that since there were two Orders in adjudication, the appellant was required to file two appeals. The Defect Memo for additional court fee was deemed correct, emphasizing that the fee was rightly collected, and the decision was pronounced in open Court.

---

---

Issues:
Refund of court fee paid for a single appeal against two Orders-in-Original.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a misc. application under Section 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules to seek a refund of Rs. 6,000/- paid as additional court fee due to a Defect Memo issued by the Registry for filing a single appeal against two Orders-in-Original. The appellant argued that since the two Orders-in-Original were decided in a single Order-in-Appeal, they should only file a single appeal. However, the JDR contested this submission, pointing out that the number of appeals should be based on the number of adjudication orders, not the number of Show Cause Notices, as held in previous cases like Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Collector and Escorts Ltd. v. CCE.

Upon perusing the cited rulings, the Tribunal found them inapplicable to the present case. Instead, the Tribunal referred to the ruling of an earlier Larger Bench in the case of Ekantika Copiers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, where it was held that the number of appeals should be based on the number of adjudicating orders. As there were two Orders in adjudication in this case, the appellants were required to file two appeals. Consequently, the Defect Memo seeking additional court fee was deemed correct, and the misc. application for a refund was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that the court fee had been rightly collected, and the decision was pronounced and dictated in open Court.

---