Commissioner lacks jurisdiction during remission application pending; rejection binds appellant to duty demand consequences.

The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Dy. Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to confirm duty demand while a remission application was pending. The rejection of the remission application and confirmation of duty demand were contradictory. The appeal against the recovery letter was dismissed as non-appealable, as it was a recovery proceeding. The appellant's failure to challenge the rejection of remission meant they were bound by its consequences, leading to the rejection of the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Dy. Commissioner to confirm demand dues in light of remission application rejection.
2. Appeal filed against the recovery letter issued by the Supdt. for dues.
3. Maintainability of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the recovery letter.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's factory faced a fire accident, leading to a remission application for duty, which was pending consideration. Simultaneously, a show cause notice proposing demand confirmation was issued. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand while the remission application was rejected by the Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the contradiction between the rejection of remission and confirming duty demand, stating the Dy. Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to confirm dues when remission was pending, a decision unchallenged by both parties.

2. Subsequently, the Central Excise authority directed the appellant to pay the duty as the remission application was rejected. The appellant challenged this recovery direction before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed it, citing alignment with the rejection of remission. However, the appeal against the recovery letter was deemed non-appealable, as it was a recovery proceeding, not an appealable order. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly dismissed the appeal due to lack of merit.

3. The appellate tribunal noted that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the recovery letter was not maintainable, being filed against a non-appealable order. The appellant's failure to challenge the rejection of remission meant they were bound by its consequences. As the Commissioner's rejection order remained unchallenged, the duty liability stood. Consequently, the appeal was rejected on the grounds of non-maintainability, aligning with the earlier observations regarding the lack of jurisdiction for the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

---