Appealable decision or order under excise law upheld despite objection based on the earlier order

The Collector's communication dated 27-6-1980 was not a mere administrative note, because it stated that the appellants were not entitled to the relief claimed and gave reasons for that conclusion. In the context of Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, an appeal lay against any decision or order of a Central Excise Officer. The Board had itself treated the communication as an order, and its rejection of the appeal rested on the view that the appellants should instead have appealed against the Assistant Collector's order. That objection was not accepted, and the preliminary objection was overruled because the communication was held to be an appealable decision or order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector's communication dated 27-6-1980 was a decision or order capable of being appealed under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and whether the appeal before the Board was incompetent for want of a proper appeal against the Assistant Collector's order.

Analysis: The communication of the Collector did not merely convey an administrative view; it stated that the appellants were not entitled to the relief claimed and gave reasons for that conclusion. In the statutory setting of Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, an appeal lay against any decision or order of a Central Excise Officer. The Board itself had treated the Collector's communication as an order, and its rejection of the appeal was based on the view that the appellants ought to have appealed against the Assistant Collector's order. The objection that the Collector's letter was not an appealable decision or order was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was overruled, and the communication dated 27-6-1980 was held to be an appealable decision or order.

---