ORDER
1. The learned Counsel stated that their application filed in the Registry on 24-9-1996 is not a Misc. application but a stay application filed by M/s. Kashmir Vanaspati Ltd. with reference to the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh, dated 13-12-1993.
2. Actually this matter had come up earlier in 1994 when their stay application (E/stay 417/94 in appeal E/112/94-C) was disposed of as infructuous by Stay Order No. 061/94, dated 29-4-1994 as the time bar aspect of the demand was yet to be decided by the Assistant Collector at that stage.
3. Regarding the time bar aspect, the Assistant Collector has since passed a separate order and an appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector and an appeal and an stay application had been filed in the Tribunal and the same had been listed before D Bench and that stay application had has since been disposed of by D Bench.
4. In response to a query from the Bench as to how he has filed another stay application in the same matter when such an application had already been disposed of, as aforesaid, the learned Counsel explained that actually in the same matter, two proceedings developed. At the Collector (Appeals) stage the matter was remanded on time bar and they had come up in appeal on merits to the Tribunal, a situation arose in which the matter in respect of their appeal regarding merits of the case was pending in the Tribunal while the remand proceedings on the aspect of time bar continued at Assistant Collector level and after his decision, the matter again went to the Collector (Appeals) and thus two appeals are pending before the Tribunal. One the present one E/712/96-C before C Bench and another Appeal No. 704/96-D before D Bench and the above Stay Order 38/96, dated 24-5-1996 has been passed by D Bench. Reason for their filing another application before this Bench is that the case on merits is pending here and, therefore, the D Bench had confined itself to the aspect of time bar while considering the stay application pending before that Bench.
5. We have considered the above position and we observe that since the two appeals in the Tribunal relate to two aspects of the same matter, therefore, the right course of action would have been to club them together and list them before the same Bench. Both the sides should have made appropriate request in this regard so that an order covering all the aspects was passed. At this stage, since the Tribunal has already disposed of the stay application and passed a conditional stay order dated 24-5-1996, it would not be appropriate to pass another order.
6. From whatever the learned Counsel has stated, it appears to be a case of split proceedings but atleast at the Tribunal’s stage, all the aspects relating to the same matter have to be considered together. Since an order has already been passed in the matter, no further order of this Bench is required. The Misc. application is disposed of in the above terms with liberty to both the sides to move appropriate application for clubbing of the two cases relating to the same matter.