Locus standi and informer reward claims fail where the petitioner is not directly affected and entitlement has not accrued yet.

A petitioner who was neither a party to, nor directly affected by, the excise dispute lacked locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's direction for final assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules. The assessment proceedings were between the excise authorities and the assessee company, and the earlier challenge to that order had already been rejected. The petitioner's claimed reward as an informer had also not accrued, because entitlement depended on finalisation of the assessment and a concluded finding of duty evasion. As no enforceable right to reward had yet arisen, the claim was premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's order directing final assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules. (ii) Whether the petitioner's claim for reward as an informer had accrued or was premature.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's order directing final assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The dispute before the Tribunal was between the Central Excise authorities and the assessee company. The petitioner was neither a party to that proceeding nor directly affected by the direction for final assessment. The challenge to the Tribunal's order had already been repelled in earlier proceedings, leaving open only the petitioner's limited right to pursue reward if and when the statutory basis for such reward actually arose.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's order.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's claim for reward as an informer had accrued or was premature.

Analysis: The petitioner's entitlement depended on the outcome of the final assessment and on a concluded finding of evasion of duty. Until the assessment was finalised and evasion, if any, was determined, no enforceable right to reward arose. The communication refusing reward was therefore consistent with the fact that the requisite cause for such reward had not yet materialised.

Conclusion: The claim for reward was premature and did not survive at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed as the petitioner could not assail the assessment-related order and had no present enforceable right to reward.

---