AIMS INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing respondent No. 3-Commissioner (Appeals) to accept and adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioner in respect of show cause notice dated 16-11-2011. In the alternative, it has prayed for an appropriate order permitting the petitioner to file separate appeal at this stage for the show cause notice dated 16-11-2011 and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to accept and adjudicate the same.

(2.) It appears that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order-in-Original dated 23-11-2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vapi passed in Order-in-Original Nos. 62-63/2012-13, the petitioner had filed common appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is not in dispute that as such the said appeal is within the prescribed period of limitation. However, it appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the opinion that though the appeal has been preferred against the common order, there were two different Orders-in-Original i.e. Order-in-Original No. 62/2012-13 and Order-in-Original No. 63/2012-13. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the opinion that two separate appeals were required to be filed and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is considering the appeal already preferred, treating it as challenging the Order-in-Original No. 62/2012-13 and has refused to consider the appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 63/2012-13. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) Shri H.D. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as such the petitioner has preferred a common appeal against the Order-in-Original Nos. 62-63/2012-13. Considering Rule 6A of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and relying upon the same, the petitioner was under a bona fide impression that a common appeal would suffice. It is submitted that assuming that Rule 6A would not be applicable to the Commissioner (Appeals), considering the aforesaid bona fide mistake, the petitioner is ready and willing to file separate appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 63/2012-13 arising out of the show cause notice dated 16-11-2011. He has submitted that such an appeal shall be preferred within the period of 15 days from today.