2013 (10) TMI 449 - AT - Central Excise

Admissibility of credit on raw materials Held that - Following Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs. CCE, Vapi, 2012 (7) TMI 84 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - The original authority had dispatched only one order in original and not the four orders in original to the appellants - 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 - the view taken by Commissioner (Appeals) that separate appeals were required to be filed by the assessee is not correct - the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant - the Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is set-aside to the extent it holds that the show cause notice dated 01.12.2011 for ₹ 13,30,173/- was not contested - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of credit on raw materials - Multiple show cause notices - Requirement of separate appeals - Interpretation of common order in original.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a stay petition and appeal against two orders: Order-in-Appeal dated 12.06.2013 and Order-in-Appeal dated 11.04.2013. The first order stated that a show cause notice dated 01.12.2011 for Rs. 13,30,173/- was uncontested, while the second order allowed the appeal on a different show cause notice dated 15.11.2011 involving Rs. 43,65,659/-. The appellant argued that both show cause notices were decided under a single Order-in-Original, leading to confusion regarding the number of appeals to be filed. The appellant cited a precedent where it was held that only one appeal is required for one Order-in-Original.

The Revenue contended that two separate appeals were necessary for the two show cause notices. The Tribunal examined the issue of admissibility of credit on raw materials, Plastic Wire and Scrap, covered by the two show cause notices. The common Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2012 decided both notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that separate appeals should have been filed for each notice, contrary to the appellant's argument. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment where it was established that only one appeal is needed for one Order-in-Original, supporting the appellant's position.

The Tribunal concluded that the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) requiring separate appeals was incorrect. Since the appeal was decided in favor of the appellant on merits, the Order-in-Appeal dated 12.06.2013 was considered to cover both show cause notices adjudicated under the common Order-in-Original. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the portion of the Order-in-Appeal stating that the show cause notice dated 01.12.2011 was uncontested, and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant accordingly.