Reckon Diagnostics P Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The case of Reckon Diagnostics P Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I decided by the CESTAT Ahmedabad raises an interesting point of law: whether a single appeal filed against an order bearing more than one order number is valid or not. This article delves into the case to offer a detailed analysis, shedding light on the arguments presented by both sides and what the ruling means for similar cases in the future.
Background: Reckon Diagnostics P Ltd filed an appeal against an original order which had two separate order numbers. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) partially upheld one of the demands but dismissed the other. The reason cited was that the appellant had filed only one appeal against the original order, even though it had two order numbers.
Legal Precedents: During the course of the appeal, several previous judgments were cited. Most notably:
- CMR Nikkie India Pvt Ltd Vs. CC – 2021
- Escorts Ltd – 2007
- Satake India Engineering P. Ltd – 2014
These cases established that if a single, common order is passed bearing more than one original order number, filing one appeal should be sufficient.
Counter-Argument: The Revenue, however, argued that the appellant should have filed two separate appeals because the original order had two order numbers. They believed that the judgment should be according to the number of order numbers in the original order.
Judgment: The CESTAT Ahmedabad clarified that past judgments have consistently ruled in favor of the appellant’s position. It highlighted that the number of appeals should correspond with the number of distinct decisions or orders, not the number of order numbers in an original order. Essentially, if a single order-in-original has multiple numbers, it doesn’t necessitate multiple appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
This appeal is directed against the OIA No PJ/615/VDR-I/2012-13 dated 25.03.2013 whereby the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of Rs. 86,474/-. However, the demand of Rs. 77453/- was upheld on the ground that the appellant have filed only one appeal against the Original order appearing two order number therefore he considered the appeal is against one order only. Accordingly, in respect of one order number demand was set aside and in respect of other order number the demand was upheld. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant.
2. Shri Dhaval Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as of now it is settled law that even though there are more than one order-in-original, if one common order is passed appearing more than one order-in-original number only one appeal is sufficient against more than one order number mentioned in the Order-In-Original. Therefore, one appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order-in-original even though appearing more than one order number is correct and legal. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the appeal against both the order-in-original numbers. He placed reliance on the following judgment:-
