Appeal maintainability under excise law and indemnity bond liability bound the successor to pay duty and interest.

Appeals to the Tribunal lie only from orders made appealable by the Central Excise Act; mere recovery letters are not independent appealable orders, so the framed appeal was not maintainable. A successor who took over a factory and executed an indemnity bond at registration could not later deny the undertaking to pay outstanding excise dues, and the duty-related liability with interest was sustained. The recovery challenge therefore failed, and no relief was granted on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable against the communications issued by the Revenue and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). (ii) Whether the appellant, having taken over the factory and executed an indemnity bond at the time of registration, was liable to pay the outstanding duty and interest and could resist recovery of penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable against the communications issued by the Revenue and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits an appeal to the Tribunal against a decision or order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appeal as framed was not maintainable. The communications relied upon by the appellant were also treated as mere letters indicating recovery of dues and not as independent appealable orders under the Act.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant, having taken over the factory and executed an indemnity bond at the time of registration, was liable to pay the outstanding duty and interest and could resist recovery of penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the appellant had executed an indemnity bond undertaking payment of the dues while seeking registration and had not raised any objection at that stage. It held that the successor could not later resile from that undertaking. Reliance was placed on the principle that successor liability can extend to excise dues, and the Tribunal distinguished the position on penalty by noting that the appellant had sufficient opportunity in the proceedings and had nonetheless bound itself by the undertaking. The demand of interest was sustained with reference to Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while the penalty portion was not accepted as a ground for relief in the appeal.

Conclusion: The appellant was held liable for the duty-related dues and interest, and the challenge to the recovery failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance and was rejected, leaving the Revenue entitled to enforce the dues in accordance with the undertaking and the statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser who obtains excise registration after executing an indemnity bond undertaking payment of outstanding dues cannot later deny liability for those dues, and an appeal to the Tribunal lies only from orders made appealable by the statute.

---