2014 (9) TMI 863 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Requirements for Composite Orders: Rule 6A Clarification

The Tribunal clarified that under Rule 6A of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, one appeal is sufficient against a composite order-in-original, even if ... Whether provisions of Rules 6A, incorporated into the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, by an amendment w.e.f. 13-5-1999, requires separate appeals being filed - Held that:- in respect of which this reference is preferred to the Bench, the subject matter of the challenge in each of the appeals is to a composite order-in-original bearing distinct numbers pertaining to multiple show cause notices. In the circumstances it is Rule 6A and not Explanation (1) that applies. As a consequence one appeal against each of the impugned orders-in-original, even though distinct numbers are provided by the adjudicating authority to each of the composite orders, would suffice. Issues:Interpretation of Rule 6A of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 regarding filing of separate appeals against composite orders-in-original.Analysis:The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Rule 6A of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in the context of filing appeals against composite orders-in-original. The core issue was whether separate appeals needed to be filed for each distinct number given to composite orders-in-original. The Registry raised an objection stating that each appellant must file as many appeals as distinct numbers given to each composite order-in-original. The Tribunal was tasked with resolving the validity of this office objection.The legal position prior to the introduction of Rule 6A was established by the decision of the Larger Bench in Eicher Motors Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore. The Larger Bench concluded that one appeal to the Tribunal would suffice where there is one impugned order, regardless of the number of show cause notices. The judgment clarified that there is no legal requirement for multiple appeals against composite orders passed pursuant to separate show cause notices. The introduction of Rule 6A was found to have no retrospective effect and did not mandate multiple appeals. This decision was followed in subsequent cases like Escorts Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad.The Tribunal analyzed Rule 6A and determined that one Memorandum of Appeal suffices against the order or decision of the authority below, even if the adjudication order is passed in respect of several show cause notices through a composite order. However, if distinct numbers are assigned to a composite adjudication order, then as many appeals must be filed before the Tribunal as the number of orders-in-original to which the case relates. In the present case, where the challenge was to composite orders-in-original with distinct numbers, Rule 6A applied, and one appeal against each impugned order-in-original sufficed.Additionally, the Tribunal directed that if an appellant disputes an office objection and requests judicial determination, the Registry must place the matter before the appropriate Bench for resolution. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of Rule 6A and clarified the requirements for filing appeals against composite orders-in-original, ensuring clarity in the procedural aspects of appeals before the Tribunal.