Separate appeals required for each show cause notice despite a composite adjudication order and consolidated penalty.

Each show cause notice gives rise to a separate decision for appeal purposes, even where the adjudicating authority disposes of several notices through one composite order. The common form of the order does not change the independent character of the underlying decisions, so the number of appeals must match the number of show cause notices covered. Difficulty in apportioning a consolidated penalty was not accepted as a reason to file only one appeal, because that difficulty could be brought to the Tribunal's attention in the appeal papers and appropriate directions sought.

---

---

Issues: Whether a single appeal was maintainable against one adjudication order disposing of multiple show cause notices, and whether difficulty in apportioning the consolidated penalty justified filing only one appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that each show cause notice culminates in a separate order or decision for the purpose of appeal, even if the adjudicating authority chooses to dispose of several notices by one composite order. The existence of a common order does not alter the underlying character of the individual decisions on each notice. Reliance was placed on the view that as many appeals are required as the number of show cause notices decided by the order. The Tribunal also held that the inability to apportion the penalty in the appeal memo was not a valid obstacle, because the appellant could make that difficulty known in the form and seek appropriate directions from the Tribunal.

Conclusion: A single appeal was not maintainable; separate appeals equal to the number of show cause notices had to be filed, and the plea based on non-apportionment of penalty was rejected.

---