Appeals under Central Excise Act dismissed by Tribunal for lack of maintainability.

The appeals filed under Section 35B(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Member of the Central Board of Excise and Customs were deemed not maintainable by the Tribunal. Despite the appellant's argument regarding potential harassment in approaching the High Court again, the Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be conferred based on objections or concessions. The decision highlights the significance of adhering to statutory provisions in determining the maintainability of appeals, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeals under Section 35B(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Member (Central Excise), Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against an order withdrawing the facility of monthly payment of excise duty and stopping the payment of excise duty by utilization of Cenvat credit for a specific period. The appellant had initially approached the High Court, which directed them to appeal under Section 35B(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Revenue argued that the impugned order was not under Section 35, making the appeals not maintainable under Section 35B(1)(c) as it protected the right of appeal against orders of the Central Board of Excise & Customs in terms of the erstwhile provisions of Section 35 of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission that the appeals filed under Section 35B(1)(c) were not maintainable, emphasizing that jurisdiction cannot be conferred based on objections or concessions. The appellant's argument that moving the High Court again would cause undue harassment was considered, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that they cannot be held maintainable solely based on being filed against the order of the Member of the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the statutory framework and the specific provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the appellant's reasoning for approaching the Tribunal following the High Court's direction, the Tribunal emphasized that the maintainability of appeals is determined by the law and not by procedural considerations. The Tribunal highlighted that the objection or concession made cannot confer jurisdiction on any Court or Tribunal, reiterating that appeals are creatures of statute. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed under Section 35B(1)(c) were not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established legal principles in determining the maintainability of appeals in such matters.

---