Tribunal procedure in appeals should ordinarily resolve preliminary objections and merits together to avoid delay and uncertainty.

The article explains that, under the appellate scheme reflected in Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal has wide procedural discretion, but that discretion should be used with restraint. It states that appellate issues should ordinarily be decided together rather than in separate preliminary and merits stages, because fragmented hearing causes delay, wastes public resources, and prolongs uncertainty for the assessee. It further notes that a writ petition challenging a preliminary-objection ruling was not maintainable while the statutory appeal on merits remained pending, and that the pending appeal should proceed to decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision on a preliminary objection was maintainable while the statutory appeal on merits remained pending, and whether the appellate forum should decide preliminary objections separately from the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962, gives the Tribunal wide procedural discretion. Even so, the discretion is to be exercised with restraint. The proper course in appellate proceedings is ordinarily to decide all issues together, because splitting a matter into preliminary and merits stages causes delay, wastes public time and money, and keeps the assessee uncertain. The Court therefore disapproved of piecemeal hearing at the appellate stage and held that entertaining the petition at that stage would merely perpetuate the same error.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable at that stage and was rejected, leaving the pending appeal to be decided on merits.

---