Appealable Order Test: a post-adjudication duty deposit letter was not an appealable order under excise law.

A communication directing deposit of duty after the demand proceedings had already run their course was treated as a mere payment direction, not a fresh adjudication of rights or liabilities. Since the underlying classification and duty demands had already been decided by the competent authority, the letter did not amount to an appealable order under Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appeal against that communication was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal lay against a letter requiring deposit of duty, and whether such communication was an appealable order under the statute.

Analysis: The communication dated 16-1-92 was found to be only a direction to deposit the amount after the demand proceedings had run their course. The underlying classification and duty demands had already been adjudicated by the competent authority, and the communication did not itself determine any fresh rights or liabilities. In these circumstances, the letter was not treated as an adjudication order capable of being appealed against under Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The appeal against the letter was held to be not maintainable.

---