Executive refusal under Rule 173H(3) held not appealable, as no quasi-judicial order or statutory remedy existed.

A communication refusing permission under Rule 173H(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as an executive decision rather than a quasi-judicial order. On that basis, it was held not to be appealable before the Commissioner or the appellate forum, because no statutory remedy was expressly provided against such a communication. The assessee was therefore required to pursue permission before the competent authority, and the challenge failed for want of maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lay against the communication refusing permission under Rule 173H(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the order was maintainable before the Commissioner.

Analysis: The communication was treated as an executive decision under Rule 173H(3), not as a quasi-judicial order appealable before the appellate authority. The assessee was directed to seek appropriate permission from the competent authority, and the appellate forum found no basis to entertain the challenge on merits.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was denied appellate relief and the challenge to the communication under Rule 173H(3) failed for want of maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: A communication passed in the exercise of executive power, where the statute does not contemplate a quasi-judicial determination, is not appealable unless the Act or Rules expressly provide such a remedy.

---