TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aper, flavor mix etc. Towards manufacture of their products they have installed machines/capital goods. For undertaking the process of printing they make use of Graved Printing Cylinders. When the cylinder was worn-out due to repeated used, they sent such cylinders to the job workers who is in the jurisdictional of the another Commissionerate and received back reconditioned cylinders for the further use. The cylinders were sent to the job worker under Rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the job worker paid the duty on reconditioned cylinders on the value of reconditioned cylinders. On receipt of the cylinders, the appellants availed Cenvat Credit of duty paid by the job worker. 3. The Department is of the view that the reconditionin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the provisions of Rule 6A of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and more particularly the explanation clause to said Rule, it is obvious that when the original authority passes more than one order on account of more than one show cause notices issued to the assessee, in that case, aggrieved party filing the appeal against such orders has to file as many memorandum of appeals as the number of orders-in-original passed by the original authority. Even though such orders are disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) by one single order, further appeals will also be governed by explanation to Rule 6A and being so, it will be necessary for the appellant to file two different appeals, in the case in hand, bearing in mind the fact that original authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsequence of Explanation (1) to Rule 6A. 7. In the present matters, in respect of which this reference is preferred to the Bench, the subject matter of the challenge in each of the appeals is to a composite order-in-original bearing distinct numbers pertaining to multiple show cause notices. In the circumstances it is Rule 6A and not Explanation (1) that applies. As a consequence one appeal against each of the impugned orders-in-original, even though distinct numbers are provided by the adjudicating authority to each of the composite orders, would suffice." Further, the reliance of the Ld. AR in the case of Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. As in the said case no composite ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ves Ltd., 2002 (139) E.L.T. 504 and judgment of Madras High Court in CCE v. CEGAT, Chennai, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 753 the plea of the assessee was upheld. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to distinguish the applicability of the judgment relied upon on behalf of the appellant." Further in the case of CCE, Chennai-III Vs. Sundaram Auto Components Ltd. - 2015 (325) ELT 104 (Mad.) the Hon'ble Madras High Court has further observed as under:- "6. The above issue has already been answered by the Supreme Court in International Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner [2005 (183) E.L.T. 239 (S.C.)]. A Bench of this scour has also held in Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry v. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (321) E.L.T. 448] that ....