Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal lay before the Tribunal against a trade notice and the connected communication, and whether such trade notice or communication could be treated as an appealable order.
Analysis: The trade notice was issued as a general instruction and guidance to the trade under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules and not as a decision or order passed by the Collector in his capacity as an adjudicating authority. The connected communication merely reiterated the position taken in the trade notice and did not amount to an order of adjudication against a particular assessee. Since the appellate jurisdiction under Section 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act extends only to a decision or order passed by the Collector as adjudicating authority, a trade notice and the related correspondence were held not to satisfy the statutory requirement for appeal. The claimed inherent power to entertain the appeal was also rejected, as appeal is a creature of statute.
Conclusion: No appeal lay against the trade notice or the accompanying communication, and the appeal was held not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A general trade notice issued under the Central Excise Rules is not an adjudicatory order under Section 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and therefore is not appealable before the Tribunal.