2021 (6) TMI 270 - AT - Customs

Tribunal: Each bill of entry requires separate appeal filings

CMR NIKKIE INDIA PVT LTD Versus C.C. -AHMEDABAD

The Tribunal held that when challenging multiple bills of entry individually, each entry should be treated as a separate order, requiring a corresponding ... Maintainability of appeal - one appeal or multiple appeals - in Order-in -Original 85 bills of entry were challenged - whether one appeal is sufficient or appellant is required to file 84 appeals? - HELD THAT:- In case there are number of bills of entry but for all the Bills of Entry if one order or decision is given then only one appeal will be sufficient. However, as per explanation to the said rule it is clear that when more than one Order-in-Original was passed assessee is required to file number of appeals as many as numbers of Orders-in-Original. In the present case there is no single order covering 84 bills of entry was passed but the 84 bills of entry itself were challenged by filing 84 appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this fact 84 bills of entry are as good as 84 assessment orders. Therefore, the appellant is required to file 84 appeals. The appellant is directed to file 83 more appeals within a period of 4 weeks from the date of order. Issues:Determining whether one appeal or multiple appeals should be filed against 84 Bills of Entry.Analysis:The case revolved around the question of whether the appellant should file one appeal or 84 appeals against 84 Bills of Entry disposed of in one Order-in-Appeal. The appellant argued that as per Rule 6A of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982, only one appeal is required even if multiple bills of entries are involved. The appellant relied on the judgment in the case of Eicher Motors Limited-2000 (116) ELT 306 (Tri.). On the contrary, the revenue contended that according to the explanation to Rule 6A, the number of appeals should match the number of bills of entry challenged. The revenue cited a judgment by the same bench in a previous case. The Tribunal was tasked with deciding this preliminary issue based on Rule 6A of the CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982.The Tribunal analyzed Rule 6A and its explanation, which states that if the impugned order-in-appeal relates to more than one order-in-original, separate appeals should be filed for each original order. In this case, since 84 bills of entry were challenged individually, they were akin to 84 assessment orders, requiring 84 appeals to be filed. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was addressed, directing the appellant to file the necessary appeals. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from the Eicher Motors judgment, stating that the facts were distinct, and thus, that precedent did not apply. Consequently, the appellant was instructed to file 83 additional appeals within four weeks from the date of the order.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that in situations where multiple bills of entry are challenged individually, each entry should be treated as a separate order, necessitating a corresponding number of appeals to be filed. The decision was based on a strict interpretation of Rule 6A and its explanation, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedural rules in filing appeals before the Tribunal.