ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member(T)
1. These applications relate to appeals arising out of the same order. In fact even if the impugned order bears one order,m action has been taken against three assessee units and 17 persons concerned therewith and or transactions connected with the three companies its the order portion shows, the Ld. Commissioner has dealt with a number of notices. The first part of his order relates to M/s. Shaper Chemicals ld. their directors and employees and other persons who aided and abetted their wrong availment of modvat credit. The other portions of the order cover the other two assessee companies and some of the people who have been penalised in the first set of proceedings, have been penalised in the 2nd and 3rd proceedings also in their capacity has aiders and abettors. Thus in the same order penalties have been imposed upon certain person in disposal of more than one show cause notice.
2. In this situations the question that was asked to Shri V.S. Nankani, appearing for M/s. Shaper Chemicals Ltd. their directors and employees was whether for each part of the order the appellants were required to file separate appeals. Shri V.S. Nankani submits that the impugned order bears only one number and in terms of Rule 6(a) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules one appeal per person would suffice. A number of office orders were passed on this issue and there is the Larger Bench judgement reported in [2000 (116) ELT 306 (Tribunal)] Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Indore. On perusal of the said judgement it would appear that even if a number of show cause notices were issued if they were all issued of the same assessee one appeal would suffice. Whether the ratio of these judgement would apply to the facts before us would have to be examined.
3. The present batch of appeals/applications is filed by three assessee companies and 10 individuals. However, 7 more people have been imposed penalties upon. It is therefore necessary to verity whether the other persons have filed the similar applications or not. If they have, the Registry shall link the applications along with these 13 applications. The applications shall be listed for hearing on 14th August 2001. Counsel will advance argument on the requirement of number of appeals to be filed at that time. Issue fresh notice.
(Pronounced in Court)