1991 (3) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Separate Appeals Required for Each Order in Tax Cases, Tribunal Rules; Majority Decision Emphasizes Procedural Compliance.

EKANTIKA COPIERS (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

EKANTIKA COPIERS (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 350 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Whether a single appeal can be filed against a common order disposing of multiple appeals.2. Interpretation of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.3. Applicability of the doctrine of merger in tax appeals.4. Procedural requirements for filing appeals in tax matters.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether a single appeal can be filed against a common order disposing of multiple appeals:The primary issue was whether a single appeal is permissible when the Collector (Appeals) disposes of multiple appeals through a common order. The appellant argued that a single appeal should suffice, citing several precedents where courts entertained single appeals against common orders. The respondent, however, contended that as many appeals as the number of orders-in-original should be filed, even if a common order was passed. The Tribunal examined various judgments, including those supporting both views. Ultimately, the majority held that multiple appeals are required, aligning with the view that each order-in-original should be contested individually.2. Interpretation of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:Section 35B was scrutinized to determine if it allows for a single appeal against a common order. The appellant emphasized the wording 'a decision or order' to argue for a single appeal. The Tribunal, however, interpreted the section to mean that each order-in-original must be appealed separately. The Tribunal noted that sub-section (3) of Section 35B specifies the timeline for filing appeals but does not alter the requirement for separate appeals for each original order.3. Applicability of the doctrine of merger in tax appeals:The doctrine of merger was discussed, with the appellant arguing that an appellate order merges the original orders, thus justifying a single appeal. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including those of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court, which clarified that while the appellate court's decision supersedes the trial court's decree, this does not negate the need for separate appeals if multiple original orders are involved.4. Procedural requirements for filing appeals in tax matters:The procedural aspect was significant in determining whether a single appeal could be entertained. The Tribunal referred to the Civil Procedure Code and other legal provisions, concluding that tax appeals are distinct from civil appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that tax proceedings are enforcement actions, not continuations of original proceedings, and thus require adherence to specific procedural norms, including filing separate appeals for each contested order.Separate Judgments:- The majority judgment concluded that multiple appeals are necessary when a common order disposes of multiple original orders.- A dissenting opinion by Member (T) D.C. Mandal argued that a single appeal should suffice, supported by several precedents and the interpretation of the expressions 'an order' and 'an appeal' in Section 35B.Conclusion:The Tribunal, by majority, held that where the Collector (Appeals) disposes of multiple appeals by a common order, the appellant must file as many appeals as there are orders-in-original. The dissenting opinion, however, supported the view that a single appeal should be permissible.