By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, MAY 07, 2013: IN this case, the allegations are not important as of now but the procedural part of passing and issuance of orders is! And one cannot miss the radical thinking on the part of the lower appellate authority.

The department issued differential duty demand notices to the appellant proposing valuation of the physician samples on pro-rata basis by adopting the MRP value on the ground that the goods were notified u/s 4A of the CEA, 1944. The demand notices were issued on 06.10.2010, 13.01.2011, 09.3.2011 and on 02.6.2011.

Since all the notices involved a common issue, the adjudicating authority passed a single order dated 29.11.2011 and in the preamble mentioned that the Order-in-Original number is 22 & 25. [Probably "&" should have been either a hyphen or "to"] Obviously, the duty demanded in all the four SCNs were confirmed under the said o-in-o.

The appellant preferred "an" appeal before the Commissioner (A) mentioning in their appeal memorandum the details of the four SCNs and the duty demanded therein and confirmed in the O-in-O.

The Commissioner(A) is a learned man.

He held that since the appellant had filed only a single appeal, the demands confirmed under the ‘three other SCNs' are sustained as not contested. In the matter of one SCN where the duty amount confirmed was Rs.4,68,446/-, he reduced the equivalent penalty imposed to Rs.1,20,000/-. So much for his magnanimity!

The appellant is before the CESTAT and submits -

+ that they had submitted single appeal as the order in original has decided the four show cause notices by a single order and no four serial numbers were given by the adjudicating authority.

+ In the appeal, they have mentioned the entire duty confirmed in respect of the all the four show cause notices.

+ that there was no reason to file four separate appeals against the four show cause notices as the order in original was one and the same.

+ nonetheless, against the present order in appeal, the appellants have submitted four appeals seeking stay.

+ on similar issue in their own case, the Bench had asked them to pre-deposit the entire duty involved.

The Revenue representative merely mentioned that the appellant should be put to terms.

The Bench observed -

"5. After hearing both sides, we find that the order in original was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Silvassa on 29.11.2011 and the order was dispatched vide F.No.V(Ch.30)2-28/DEM/10-11/3943 dated 29.11.2011. We note that original authority had dispatched only one order in original and not the four orders in original to the appellants. We, therefore, are of the view that one appeal filed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) is maintainable and there was no need for the appellant to file four separate appeals against one order in original."

In the matter of the Stay applications filed, in view of the submissions made by the appellant, the Bench directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount of duty involved in the four SCNs and report compliance.

In passing: We overheard that a new course is to be introduced in NACEN titled ‘Numbering an o-in-o involving more than one SCN' & ‘How many appeals for a common o-in-o?'. See also (2013-TIOL-239-CESTAT-MUM) & (2013-TIOL-749-CESTAT-MUM).

(See 2013-TIOL-855-CESTAT-AHM)