Appellate jurisdiction requires an appealable adjudicatory order, not a mere communication conveying a decision.

Appellate jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act lies only against an order passed by the Commissioner in an adjudicatory capacity. A communication or letter merely conveying the Commissioner's decision on transfer of unutilised Modvat credit is not itself an appealable order. As the appeal was not directed against any adjudicatory order, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it and the appeal was rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lay to the Tribunal against a communication/letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner conveying the Commissioner's decision on transfer of unutilised Modvat credit, in the absence of an appealable adjudicatory order by the Commissioner.

Analysis: Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 confers appellate jurisdiction on the Tribunal against orders passed by the Commissioner acting as an adjudicating authority. The impugned communication was only a letter conveying a decision and did not constitute an order passed by the Commissioner in his adjudicatory capacity. Since the appeal was not directed against an appealable order, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was rejected on the ground of jurisdiction.

---