Appealable order requires adjudication: audit objection communication alone cannot sustain an excise appeal.

A Superintendent's communication merely conveying audit objections and requesting duty deposit was held not to be an adjudicatory order or a demand determining liability. A valid excise demand had to be preceded by a show cause notice, and without such a demand the communication was not appealable under the Central Excise Act. The appellate challenge was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Superintendent's communication conveying audit objections and requesting deposit of duty constituted an appealable order so as to sustain the appeal under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The communication was found to be only an intimation of the audit report and not an adjudicatory order or decision determining duty liability. It did not amount to a demand of duty, and any lawful demand had to be preceded by a show cause notice. Since the impugned communication was not a valid appealable order, the appellate challenge could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

---