1984 (12) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fferent Bills of Entry of diverse dates between 18-5-1979 and 1-6-1979; (b) the claims were adjudicated upon and rejected mostly as time-barred in five different Orders-in-Original (S/8-704/80R and four others) on or about 18-1-1980; (c) in Appeals, the Appellate Collector directed the Assistant Collector to adjudicate the claims on merits (Order No. S/49-201 & 203/80R, dated 26-2-1980); (d) the Appellant resubmitted all the five claims to the Assistant Collector; they were once again rejected on the ground that the discounts were of a special nature and not admissible; (e) in Appeals, the aforesaid Orders were set aside and the Appellant once again "approached the Assistant Collector of Customs for refund of all the claims ........

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n para (5) of the Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant made specific. mention of the "Orders-in-Original ..... (S/8/704/80R and four others)". The Appellant was thus perfectly aware right through that there were five different Orders-in-Original - although textually identical. 3.  It was in the backdrop of these incontrovertible facts that we allowed an opportunity to the Appellant to make good the deficiency in the number of Appeals that had, necessarily, to be filed before the Tribunal, if it were desired to contest all or a plurality of the Orders-in-Original, notwithstanding that we could have, if we so chose, required the Appellant to restrict the single Appeal filed to one only of the refund claims. For, it is axiomatic in law ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion before departmental quasi-judicial authorities. It is to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the litigant on account of adherence to the practice, albeit wrong, and at the same time enforce he filing of the requisite number of separate Appeals that we had been, consistently, affording an opportunity to the various Appellants before us to make good the deficiency with Applications for condonation of delay in filing them belatedly. 5. Accordingly it was, that on 14-8-1984, we made the Order which, instead of being complied with readily, is required to be clarified. 6.  In the instant Application, it was stated that all five claims were disposed of by one Single Order-in-Original and, consequently, it is sought to be inferred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order:- (a) a decision or order passed by the Collector of Central Excise as an Adjudicating Authority; (b) an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A. **************** A plain reading of the Clause (b) would reveal that what is appealable to the Tribunal is "an order passed by the Collector of Appeals under Section 35A". Therefore, it is immaterial whether such an order disposed of one appeal or hundreds of appeals. Moreover as per the doctrine of merger as soon as the order is passed by Collector (Appeals), the orders appealed against merges into it. Therefore from this point of view also the asking of filing appeals on the basis of non-existing order of ....