TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is case imported two consignments and declared the goods as "Prime Stainless Steel Tubes" for clearance. The goods were warehoused under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962 and since the value of the goods imported appeared very low to the Department the Special Investigation Branch of the Customs House investigated the cases and on examination of the goods the same were found to be 'disposal goods', which according to the Department was imported in contravention of Para-358 (1) of ITC Handbook-AM-85 and were liable to confiscation. Accordingly, two separate show cause notices with respect to each consignment were issued to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why the subject goods be not confiscated and penalty imposed in this regard. The respondents replies the same. The Collector adjudicated the case vide his two separate order-in-original Nos. (i) S. 2-25/85-SIB dated 18-9-1985 and (ii) S. 2-16/85-SIB dated 18-9-1985 - ordered for the confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by these two adjudication orders the respondents filed two separate appeals which were disposed of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 the aggrieved party by an application made in this behalf can require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question arising out of such an order. Therefore, he contended that the order being one order one application for reference will suffice. 5. The learned Advocate, Shri S.K. Bagaria contended that two applications for reference should be made in this case as the Appellate Tribunal had disposed of two appeals by a common order. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions. (i) VOL. : L : 1963 ITR 195; (ii) 140-ITR-979; (iii) 1985 (21) Taxman-84. He, however, fairly conceded that there are two other judgments against his contention and stated those decisions as the following ones :- (i) 164-ITR-600; (ii) 99-ITR-552. 6. We have heard the rival contentions. In the case of Nawal Bihari Lal Goel v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-V reported in 1983-140-ITR-979 it was held by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court that the assessee or the Department, whoever is the party, moving the High Court for an order directing the Tribunal to state a case in relation to a common order for more than one year, ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the learned Advocate, Shri Bagaria that two Reference Applications should have been filed in this case. He further referred to a case reported in 99-ITR-552 in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Delhi (Central) and Another v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B and Others. In that particular case the subject matter in the five appeals were common and was disposed of by a common judgment and one Reference Application alone was filed. In that case, an appeal was originally filed by one Shri Sahu Jagdish Prasad during his life-time against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by which order he has set aside the proceedings under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act directing the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. The Income Tax Officer made a fresh assessment in pursuance of the above said order. The assessee feeling aggrieved by that order challenged the same in appeal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer. Before the appeal could be filed against this subsequent order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner Shri Sahu Jagdish Prasad, the karta of the Assessee Family, died on 29-8-1963. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, the Wealth Tax Officer passed nine orders-in-original for assessment years - 1969-70 to 1977-78. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disposed of the nine appeals against these orders by a common judgment, stating that points involved are the same. The appeals preferred to the Tribunal were also disposed of by a common order. In such circumstances, the High Court held that in the absence of any specific rule in the Wealth Tax Rules, and there being no bar against it under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, one Reference Application could be filed. The High Court also held that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent. But the facts of that case are not similar to the facts of this case. 7. The matter becomes very clear in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa and Others reported in Vol. I-1963 dated 5th April, 1963. In that case their Lordships held as follows :- "In Lajwanti's case, there were a number of applications under Section 66(2) of the Income-Tax Act for reference of the same question. There were in fact a number of separate references but they were dealt with by one judgment from which the appeal to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led in this case. 8. This takes us to the next in question as to what will happen to the present Reference Application. This present Reference Application can be treated as a Reference Application against the orders of the Tribunal in Appeal No. C-95/86. The reason is that the second Reference Application bearing No. 2/88 was filed by the applicant stating that the same was with respect to Appeal No. C-96/86. But later that application was not pressed and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present application can be treated to be a Reference Application with respect to the disposal of Appeal No. C-95/86. In this connection, we again refer to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Another v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench reported in Vol. 99 Income-Tax Reports-1975, wherein at page-559 their Lordships held as follows :- "It is well-settled that the cases where two or more appeals are consolidated and heard together, combining the controversy in the appeals into a single controversy and making the proceedings a single proceeding disposing them of by a single judgment, there is no warrant for holding that an appeal filed agains....