G. Sankaran, Vice-President

1. These two appeals involve common issues and were, therefore, taken up together for hearing.

2. In Appeal No. 1628/81, the facts, briefly put, are that the appellants, hereinafter referred to as "TELCO", manufacture Power Packs at their Chinchwad factory and clear the same under exemption Notification No. 118/75-Central Excise, dated 30.4.1975 to their Pimpri factory where they manufacture, inter alia, Hydraulic Rivetting Guns. The power packs supply the requisite power to the guns. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated 31.3.1980, held that the composite equipment consisting of the power pack, pipeline and the rivetting gun was a complete machinery excisable under Item No. 68 (CET, i.e., the Central Excise Tariff Schedule) and ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 118/75, dated 30.4.1975. In appeal, the Appellate Collector, by his order, upheld the Assistant Collector's order. Appeal No. 1628/81 is against this order.

3. Turning to appeal No. 200/82, the facts, briefly stated, are; that TELCO filed a classification list, effective from 1.3.1979, showing their products, viz. "Dies for Cold Pressing" as falling under Item No. 51A(iii), CET, and "Hydraulic Rivetting Guns" under Item No. 51A(ii). TELCO had contended that these goods fell under Item No. 68, CET, which claim apparently had not been accepted and hence the above classification list was filed under protest. After considering TELCO's representation, the Assistant Collector,- Pune, accepted their claim and re-classified the goods under Item No. 68, CET by his order dated 31.3.1981. The Collector of Central Excise, Pune, however, considered that this order was not correct. Hence, after issue of a notice to TELCO under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises:- and Salt Act, and holding adjudication proceedings, the Collector passed an order on 13.1.1982 by which he set aside the Assistant Collector's order and ordered classification of dies for cold pressing under Item No. 51A(iii) and hydraulic rivetting guns under Item No. 51A(ii) of the CET. It is against this order the appeal No. 200/82 has been filed.

4. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate, with Shri Madhava Rao, Advocate, for TELCO and Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R., for the respondent.

5. We notice that it was the same order-in-original No. VGN(30)-53/VC/78, dated 31.3.1980 of the Assistant Collector that was the subject of the appeal proceedings before the Appellate Collector [disposed of by his order No. 597/PN-31/81, dated 14.5.1981 and the revision proceedings before the Collector, Pune (disposed of by his order No. VGN(30)-158/ VC/80, dated 13.1.19821 In the normal course, there should have been no occasion for this situation. However, at the material time, while the assessee had the right of appeal against the order-in-original under Section 35 of the Act, the Collector had the power of revision under Section 35A of the Act. The appeal by TELCO was dated 4.7.1980 (the date of actual filing is not clear) while the Collector's show cause notice to TELCO under Section 35A was dated 28.8.1980. The Appellate Collector had disposed of the appeal by his order dated 14.5.1981, despatched on 5.6.1981. The Collector, Pune's Order-in-Revision was passed on 13.1.1982. The counsel for TELCO has submitted before us that the Collector, Pune did not have jurisdiction to pass the order he did on 13.1.1982, long before which date the Assistant Collector's order had come to be merged with the Appellate Collector's order dated 14.5.1981. The departmental representative's submission is that the Collector had the requisite power of revision under Section 35A of the Act'. Since this is a fundamental issue of jurisdiction, we shall deal with it first.

6. It is a well settled position in Law that the order passed by the original authority merges with the order of the appellate authority. In the case of Orissa Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Ors. , 1979 ELT (3457), the Calcutta High Cou