Per Justice U.L. Bhat :

Appellant's representative Shri S.R. Moorthy has presented an application seeking adjournment of the appeal on the ground that Shri V.H. Shah, consultant appearing for the appellant would not be in a position to attend to the appeal. It is also stated that the Tribunal has required the appellant to file five more appeals. We not in a position to agree that the ground urged for adjournment is sufficient. It is also not explained as to why five supplementary appeals could not be filed within the time granted. In these circumstances, we decline the request for adjournment. Shri S.R. Moorthy stated that he has no arguments to address. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR.

2. The dispute relates to six refund claims filed by the appellant before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector allowed the claims in part by six separate orders. The appellant filed six appeals before the Collector (Appeals) against the six orders. The Collector (Appeals) consolidated the appeals and passed a single order partly confirming the impugned orders and partly setting aside the impugned orders and remanded four refund claims to the Assistant Collector for denovo consideration. This was evidently because he set aside the rejection by the Assistant Collector of the claim based on interest on receivables and interest on stocks. The refund claims to this extent were remanded pending decision of the Supreme Court in MRF Ltd. case after recalling the earlier order. The refund of these two elements was not involved in the other two appeals and they were accordingly rejected. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the finding of the Assistant disallowing discount for the cost of secondary packing.

3. Since the appellant is challenging the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in six different appeals arising out of the orders passed in six different refund claims, it is necessary for the appellant to file six appeals before the Tribunal. However, appellant filed a single appeal. Even on 29.9.1997 the Tribunal passed an order in this behalf. The notice sent to the appellant specifically pointed out that appellant has been directed to file supplementary appeals with application for condonation of delay. No such supplementary appeals have been filed. In the absence of supplementary appeals, the appellant would be required to limit this appeal to one of the cases. The appellant has not chosen to exercise this option. We find that of the six refund claims, the maximum amount disallowed was in the refund claim disposed of by order No. R/5/89 dated 5.7.1989 of the Assistant Collector. The proceeding leading to this order has been remanded by the Collector (Appeals) after rejecting the claim for deduction on account of secondary packing. We treat the present appeal as having been filed against the order-in-appeal in the appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Collector No. R/5/89 dated 5.7.89.

4. Two questions arise for consideration in regard to this aspect of the appeal. One relates to the duty on the cost of secondary packing. This question has to be decided in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in MRF Ltd. case, 1995 (8) RLT 517 (S.C.) = 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) and Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd., 1997 (18) RLT 671 (S.C.) = 1997 (90) ELT 271 (SC). The lower authorities have not considered this question in a satisfactory manner. The question on the aspect relating to interest on stocks and interest on receivables is also covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd., 1995 (8) RLT 517 (S.C.) = 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC).

5. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in the appeal against the order No. R/5/89 dated 5.7.89 passed by the Assistant Collector by directing that the question of deduction of the cost of secondary packing will be considered by the Assistant Collector afresh before finally disposing of the refund claims on which