P.K. Desai, Member (J)

1. With identical issues involved in all these appeals they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order

2.1. Appeal No. E/3510/91A as also Appeal Nos. E/575/93A to E/583/93A with E/COD-75/93 to 83/93A are directed against the order-in-Appeal No. SDK/364/B-II/91 dated 17-9-1991 issued under F. No. V-2 (Ch.38)/751/90/3866 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-original No. V. Ch. 84(30)39/89 dated 26-7-1990 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II. As these orders are the outcome of ten Show-cause Notices issued, the appellants having initially filed a single appeal (No. E/3510/91A) have chosen to file nine additional appeals (Nos. E/575/93 to 583/93) and as those subsequently filed appeals are filed after the expiry of the period of limitation specified for filing the appeal, the appellants have filed applications (E/COD/75/93 to E/COD/83/93) praying for condonation of delay.

2.2 When only one order-in-original is passed covering more than one Show-cause Notice, it is not necessary to file separate appeals for each Show-cause Notice covered under the same order and a single appeal could be maintainable. The appellants have also filed only one appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and similarly only one appeal could have been filed before the Tribunal. In that case filing of separate appeals is not required. However, when they have chosen to file separate appeals, the same are also being disposed of by this order. Though the original appeal filed is within the specified period of limitation the other nine appeals are beyond the said period and hence, condonation of delay is prayed for. Considering the facts and circumstances and maintaining that such separate appeals are not called for the delay in filing these appeals is condoned. Having orally pronounced the decision at the commencement of hearing of the appeals on merits, for the purpose of record, this formal order is passed, condoning the delay in filing the aforementioned nine appeals E/COD/75/93 to E/COD/83/93A are therefore allowed.

2.3 Appeal No. E/970/92A is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. KPS/665/B-II/91 dated 3-3-1992 issued under F. No. V-2 (Ch. 84) 242/91/635 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay confirming the Order-in-original No. V-Ch. 84(30)79/90/4275 of 30-4-1991 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II.

3.1 The appellants, holders of Central Excise Licence, are engaged in manufacture, amongst others, of Fork Lift Trucks falling under sub-heading No. 8427.00 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and have been filing price lists as required under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under Proforma V as per the provisions of Rule 6(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, from time to time.

3.2 The appellants, in the price-lists so filed were claiming 7.5% as permissible deductions, showing the trucks as sold in retail to individual customers, and indicating price as retail price. From the work orders furnished by the appellants, it was felt that the Fork Lift Trucks were being manufactured as per the specification of the customers with whom the appellant company had entered into contract and the nature of commodity was such that they could not be sold in large number, the price charged ought to be considered as normal whole-sale price, and that price list ought to have been filed in Proforma II as per proviso (1) to Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act,1944 and 7.5% claimed as permissible deduction was not admissible.

3.3 Consequent thereto, a notice to show cause dated 29-8-1986 followed by other similar Show-cause Notices, came to be issued to the appellants, calling upon them to show cause why their price list filed in Proforma V should not be rejected and why price should not be computed on the basis of contract price entered into between them and the customers, tr