Revision under Central Excise law requires no appeal to lie; where appeal was available, the application was not maintainable.

Section 36(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act permits revision only where no appeal lies against the impugned order. Because an appeal was available against the Superintendent's order, the revision application could not be maintained under that provision. The earlier view on suo motu revision under section 35A was distinguished as it concerned a different statutory power and an assessee-initiated request under that section was not involved here. The statutory precondition for revision was therefore not met, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision application under section 36(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act was maintainable when an appeal lay against the order of the Superintendent, and whether the earlier view on suo motu revision under section 35A could assist the applicants.

Analysis: Section 36(1) permits revision only against an order from which no appeal lies. The application before the authority was filed under section 36(1) against the order of the Superintendent, but an appeal was available against that order. The earlier decision dealing with section 35A was distinguished because it concerned the exercise of suo motu revisionary power at the instance of an assessee, whereas no application under section 35A had been made in the present matter. The clear statutory condition attached to section 36(1) was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The revision application was not maintainable under section 36(1) and was dismissed.

---