The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not limiting the adjudication to the specific cases within each show cause notice.

1. The assessee is in appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.

2. We set out the facts only insofar as they relate to the three issues which are canvassed at the Bar.

3. The assessee, a cigarette manufacturing company, was issued a show cause notice on 26th August, 1983 in respect of its Bombay factory. A demand for excise duty in the sum of Rs. 28.93 crores was raised for the period 1978 to 1983. On 19th April, 1984 a second show cause notice was issued to the assessee. It was in respect of its Baroda factory. It related to period 1978 to 1983 and demanded Rs. 35.32 crores by way of excise duty. On 2nd September, 1985 a third show cause notice was issued to the assessee which related to its Bombay and Baroda factories. It sought to make the assessee and two of its job workers liable to excise duty in the sum of Rs. 13.37 crores for the period 1st July, 1978 to 30th June, 1980. The third show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Director of Anti Evasion, Central Excise, New Delhi.

4. In 1984 the assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court at Bombay challenging the first show cause notice. At subsequent stages the writ petition was amended so that the second and third show cause notices were also subjected to challenge. On 20th June, 1984 the High Court permitted the Revenue to proceed with the adjudication of the first show cause notice, but directed:
The order signed by the concerned officer as provided herein above will not be communicated to the respondents nor will the concerned officer or any other officer of the Excise Department inform the respondents of the fact that the order has been passed and / or signed by the concerned officer.
On 18th June, 1991 the High Court noted that orders had been passed in the adjudication proceedings and directed that the sealed cover in which the orders had been placed be opened and the orders shown to learned Counsel for the assessee and the Revenue also, that the Revenue should supply copies of the orders to the assessee's advocates. On 21st July, 1994 the High Court directed that the assessee and / or the Revenue "may file appeal to the Tribunal against the said orders within two months from today..." and "if the said appeal is filed by the petitioners or the respondents, as the case may be, the Tribunal to entertain the said appeal on merits without taking the objection of limitation."

5. On 29th May, 1992 the Central Board of Excise & Customs made an order under the provisions of S.35E(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act , 1944 directing the Commissioner (L & A) as Collector of Central Excise to apply to the Tribunal for determination of the questions therein stated, which arose out of the adjudication order dated 21st August, 1987 passed by the Director (L & A) on the three show cause notices, heard and dealt with together. The order of the Central Board was endorsed, amongst others, to the Principal Collector of Central Exercise, New Delhi.

6. On 16th September, 1994 the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal against the said adjudication order insofar as it related to the first and second show cause notices, which was adverse to it.

7. On 14th December, 1995 an application for clarification/directions was made by the Commissioner (L & A), Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi to the Tribunal. The application stated that an appeal had been lodged by the applicant against the said adjudication order on that day, namely, 18th December, 1995. It stated that since a copy of the Boards' order under S.35E(1) had not been endorsed to the applicant, although there was a direction to fire an appeal, he did not have knowledge of the direction until he