Tribunal allows multiple appeals on same order, stresses legal compliance

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that filing two appeals against two orders-in-original disposed of in the same Order-in-Appeal was permissible under the law. The Tribunal cited the Ekantika Copiers case to support this decision. Additionally, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order based on Final Order No. 889/2007, following the direction of the Division Bench. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and complying with the law when filing appeals and addressing issues from previous orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant filed repeated appeals against the same order-in-appeal.
2. Whether the appellant was correct in filing two appeals against the order-in-appeal with two numbers.
3. Whether the impugned order was set aside by the Division Bench based on Final Order No. 889/2007.

Analysis:
1. The ld. DR argued that the appellant filed repeated appeals, leading to a notice under Section 129C(7) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal directed the appellant to explain the reason for filing multiple appeals against the same order-in-appeal. The appellant, represented by the Counsel, clarified that they filed two appeals as the Order-in-Appeal disposed of two orders-in-original. The Tribunal, after examining the Order-in-Appeal, agreed with the appellant's stance. Referring to the Ekantika Copiers case, the Tribunal held that the law allows filing as many appeals as there are orders-in-original. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation satisfactory and ruled that filing two appeals was in accordance with the law.

2. The records indicated that the Final Order No. 889/2007 disposed of Order-in-Appeal No. 25 & 26/2006(V-II) Cus. The Division Bench had directed the lower authorities to adjust the excess amount paid by the appellants. The appellant confirmed no further communication regarding any interest payable. The Tribunal, bound by the Final Order, set aside the impugned order to the extent challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the binding nature of the Final Order and the absence of communication regarding interest payment by the appellant.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal resolved the issues by clarifying that the appellant did not file repeated appeals but acted in accordance with the law by filing two appeals against the two orders-in-original disposed of in the Order-in-Appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the impugned order based on the Final Order No. 889/2007, as directed by the Division Bench. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring compliance with the law in filing appeals and addressing issues arising from previous orders.

---