Court allows appeal, sets aside Tribunal decision. Communication not an order. Tribunal to reconsider appeal.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision not to hear the appeal based on a clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The Court held that the communication from the Deputy Commissioner was not an adjudicating order and the Tribunal should have considered the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal erred in not entertaining the appeal on its merits and the case was restored back to the Tribunal to be decided in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against refusal to hear by Tribunal on clarification issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the Tribunal's decision not to hear the appeal regarding a clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The clarification was sought by the Departmental authority based on directions from the Commissioner (Appeals-II) regarding the non-mentioning of CTH 4809 in certain notifications. The Commissioner felt it could be an inadvertent omission and directed the Departmental authority to seek clarification from the Board. The Board issued a clarification on 22-12-2015, which was conveyed to the Assessee by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 12-4-2016. The Assessee initially approached the Court through Writ Petitions, which were disposed of, directing the Assessee to approach the Appellate authority and then the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, refused to entertain the appeal on merits.

The Assessee argued that the communication from the Deputy Commissioner was not an adjudicating order, and the Tribunal should have considered the appeal on its merits instead of directing the Assessee to file another appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, the Revenue's Counsel justified the Tribunal's decision, stating that the appropriate appellate authority for the Deputy Commissioner's decision is the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not entertaining the appeal on its merits. The communication from the Deputy Commissioner did not decide the rights of the parties and should not be considered an adjudicating order. The Tribunal, being a fact-finding body, should have decided the case on its merits, considering the clarification issued by the Board. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the appeal back to the Tribunal to be decided on its merits and in accordance with the law.

---