1988 (1) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules orders are interlocutory, not appealable. Applicant's statutory interpretation arguments dismissed. Pre-deposit condition emphasized.

The Tribunal held that the orders in question were interlocutory and not final, therefore not appealable. The Applicant's arguments on the interpretation ... No question of law arises from Tribunal’s order Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions of Section 35A and 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 regarding appealability of orders.2. Justifiability of the Tribunal's decision on the finality of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35F.3. Entitlement to a hearing before the Collector (Appeals) on Stay Application under Section 35F.Analysis:Issue 1:The Applicant raised questions on the interpretation of Section 35A and 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, regarding the appealability of the Collector (Appeals) order. The Applicant argued that the order directing pre-deposit during appeal is appealable under Section 35A. The Tribunal considered the discretion exercised by the lower appellate authority as interlocutory, not appealable. The Applicant contended that unless settled by the High Court or Supreme Court, the issue remains a question of law under Section 35G.Issue 2:The Tribunal examined the appeal filed by the Applicant against the order of the Collector (Appeals) directing pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal held that the direction for pre-deposit was an interlocutory order, not a final order. The Tribunal referred to the necessity of pre-deposit as a condition precedent for appeal under Section 35F and highlighted the Applicant's failure to plead financial incapacity for waiver. The Tribunal emphasized the Applicant's option to seek modification of the order before the lower appellate authority, rendering the appeal mis-conceived and incompetent.Issue 3:Regarding the entitlement to a hearing before the Collector (Appeals) on the Stay Application under Section 35F, the Tribunal considered the order as interlocutory, not warranting a reference to the High Court. The Applicant cited the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court to interfere with Tribunal findings based on legal misinterpretation or lack of evidence. However, the Tribunal concluded that no question of law arose from the interlocutory order, rejecting the Reference Application.In summary, the Tribunal found that the orders in question were interlocutory and not final, thus not warranting an appeal or reference to the High Court. The Applicant's arguments regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions and entitlement to a hearing were considered but ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal based on the nature of the orders and lack of legal questions meriting reference.