Statutory appeal limits under tax rules: tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and estoppel could not cure the defect.

Under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989, the appellate structure was confined to adjudication by the customs authority, an appeal to the Collector (Appeals), and revision to the Central Government; no further appeal lay to the Tribunal, so the Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction without an express statutory provision. A mistaken covering letter, consent, or estoppel could not confer jurisdiction or defeat the statutory consequence of limitation. However, because the assessee had been misled by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Court granted limited equitable protection by allowing revision to be filed within the time fixed and without dismissal on limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989. (ii) Whether the respondent could rely on the covering letter and estoppel to sustain the appeal or defeat the consequence of limitation in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989.

Analysis: The scheme of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1979 and the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989 provided adjudication by the customs authority, an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), and a revision to the Central Government. No provision in the Rules conferred a further appeal to the Tribunal. Since the right of appeal is purely statutory, the Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction in the absence of an express enabling provision.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and its order was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent could rely on the covering letter and estoppel to sustain the appeal or defeat the consequence of limitation in revision.

Analysis: A mistaken reference in the covering letter could not override the statutory scheme. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, misstatement, or estoppel, and there is no estoppel against statute. At the same time, because the respondent had been misled by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), equitable relief was warranted by permitting a revision to be filed within a stipulated time without dismissal on limitation.

Conclusion: The respondent could not sustain the appeal on the basis of estoppel, but was entitled to file revision within the time allowed by the Court without being met by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the jurisdictional question, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and limited protective relief was granted to enable a revision before the Central Government.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme provides no appeal, a tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain one, and neither consent nor estoppel can validate the proceeding or confer jurisdiction contrary to the statute.

---