Appeal allowed due to jurisdictional error in statutory provision application.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the wrong statutory provision was not maintainable. The appeal was allowed solely on the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant, highlighting the necessity of filing appeals under the appropriate statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 84 of the Finance Act 1994 instead of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal in question challenged an order dated 29.11.2018 by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of a refund amounting to Rs.10,82,594/- for the appellant. The Commissioner held that the appellant was only entitled to a refund of Rs.81,195/- as a pre-deposit made during the appeal process. The appellant contended that the order was not maintainable as it was passed under the wrong statutory provision. The issue revolved around the refund of Cenvat Credit by the appellant as a manufacturer of excisable goods. The appellant argued that the appeal should have been filed under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal cited previous cases where appeals filed under the wrong statute were rejected, emphasizing the importance of filing appeals under the correct statutory provisions.

The Authorized Representative for Revenue defended the impugned order, claiming that the defect in passing the order under the wrong statute was curable and should not invalidate the order. They cited various judgments to support their argument, but the Tribunal found these cases to be distinguishable from the present situation. The Tribunal noted that the issue of jurisdiction in filing and disposing of appeals under different statutes was crucial. Since there was no indication that the higher courts had overruled the Tribunal's decision in similar cases, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable on the grounds of maintainability. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on the limited ground of jurisdiction only.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the wrong statutory provision was not maintainable. The appeal was allowed based on the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant, emphasizing the importance of filing appeals under the correct statutory provisions for the subject matter at hand.

---