Appeals must go to Commissioner (Appeals) first, not Tribunal directly. Stay petition rejected.

The Tribunal held that appeals against orders of the Assistant Commissioner in de-novo proceedings should be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and not directly before the Tribunal. The appellant's argument that the stay petition should be considered part of an earlier appeal was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no provision for filing appeals or stay petitions before the Tribunal in such cases. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the stay petition, directing the appellant to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal over appeals against orders of Assistant Commissioner passed in de-novo proceedings.
2. Applicability of Section 35B of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding appealable orders.
3. Consideration of stay petitions in relation to orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the jurisdictional issue of challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in de-novo proceedings before the Tribunal. The impugned order quantified service tax and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of directly before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the order by the Assistant Commissioner was passed in de-novo proceedings after a remand by the Commissioner (Appeals). They contended that since they had already challenged the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal, the present stay petition should be considered part of the earlier appeal. However, the Tribunal held that as per Section 35B of the Finance Act, 1994, orders by the Assistant Commissioner are appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) and not directly before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no provision for filing an appeal or stay petition before the Tribunal against orders of the Assistant Commissioner passed in de-novo proceedings. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was found to be detailed, well-reasoned, and in an appealable form, directing the appellant to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the stay petition, stating that there was no merit in the arguments presented by the appellant.

---