Non-adjudicatory communication on remission of duty was not an appealable final order where the competent authority had not decided the request on merits.

A communication that merely conveyed an earlier rejection of permission to destroy goods and noted non-compliance did not amount to a final adjudicatory order on the pending remission request. The competent authority had not yet decided the application on merits, so the communication could not be treated as an appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The request had been addressed to the Commissioner because the duty amount crossed the limit prescribed for lower officers under the remission instructions, but that did not convert the impugned communication into a final decision. The revision challenge accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the communication dated 1-2-2011 constituted a final adjudicatory order rejecting the request for remission of duty and permission to destroy goods, and whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was maintainable.

Analysis: The request for remission and destruction of goods had been addressed to the Commissioner, who was the competent authority because the duty amount involved exceeded the limit for lower officers under the applicable remission instructions. The impugned communication merely informed the applicant that the earlier request for destruction had already been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and that non-compliance with the prior order had been noticed. It did not contain a final decision by the Commissioner on the pending application dated 23-4-2010. Since the competent authority had not passed a final order on that request, the communication could not be treated as an appealable order disposing of the matter on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the revision challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A communication that merely conveys an earlier rejection or notes non-compliance, without finally deciding a pending remission request by the competent authority, is not an appealable adjudicatory order before the Commissioner (Appeals).

---