CCE Vs. RATHI ISPAT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the department. On last occasion bench directed to file 11 appeals since the order in appeal bearing No. 237 -47 (11 appeals) were disposed of by the Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad by common order.

(2.) SHRI Mewa Singh, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that in view of the amendment of Rule 6A of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. On 13.5.99 by issuing Public Notice No. 1/CEGAT/99, one appeal is sufficient against the common impugned order. We also take note of the fact that Larger Bench has also pronounced the verdict in the case of M/s Eicher Motors Ltd. and M/s. Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1291/95 -NB (DB) and E/4007/95 Cal. holding that there is no bar in the Act or in the Rules to the passing of consolidated orders by the adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority, a single appeal filed against such an order cannot be held to be irregular only for the reason that the impugned order had dealt with more than one SCN. In view of the verdict as well as amendment to Rule 6A, objection raised by the bench earlier is recalled and accordingly we hold that single appeal is sufficient against the common and consolidated orders. M/s Eicher Motors Ltd. and M/s. Alliance Mills (Lessees) Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1291/95 -NB(DB) and E/4007/95 Cal.

(3.) THE issue relates to denial of Modvat credit. Modvat credit has been denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that they are not eligible inputs in terms of Rule 57A. Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the Tribunal held they are eligible inputs in terms of Rule 57A.