CESTAT appellate route bars revision where impugned excise orders are appealable and no statutory exception applies.

Where the Central Excise Act provided an appeal to the CESTAT against the order rejecting remission of duty and the order confirming duty demand on goods destroyed by fire, the revision forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The orders did not fall within the statutory exception in the first proviso to section 35B(1), so the proper appellate remedy lay before the Tribunal and not by revision to the Government. The revision application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision application was maintainable when the impugned orders were appealable to the CESTAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The applicant had challenged both the order rejecting remission of duty and the order confirming duty demand on goods destroyed in fire. The forum examined the statutory scheme and noted that the order rejecting remission was appealable to the Appellate Tribunal and that the order-in-appeal relating to duty demand was also within the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction. As the orders were not of the nature covered by the first proviso to section 35B(1), the revision forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Conclusion: The revision application was not maintainable and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides an appeal to the CESTAT and the impugned order does not fall within the statutory exception to that appellate route, a revision application before the Government is barred for want of jurisdiction.

---