Appellate jurisdiction over deposit adjustment fails where no duty demand or penalty was imposed on the appellant

An appeal against adjustment of a depositor's amount towards third-party duty liability was not maintainable where the adjudication order had exonerated the appellant from duty and imposed no penalty on it. The Tribunal treated the post-adjudication appropriation as an administrative adjustment rather than an exercise of appellate adjudicatory power under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. As no duty demand or penalty had been fastened on the appellant, the Tribunal declined to grant relief in appeal and indicated that the appropriate remedy lay before the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could grant relief against the adjustment of the appellant's deposit towards the duty liability of the body builders when no duty demand or penalty had been fastened on the appellant under the adjudication order.

Analysis: The adjudication order exonerated the appellant from duty liability and did not impose any penalty on it. The adjustment of the amount deposited by the appellant was made only after the adjudication had concluded and was treated as an appropriation towards the liability of third parties. Such adjustment was not regarded as an exercise of adjudicatory power within the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Since the appellant itself was not held liable to duty, the Tribunal held that it could not grant the requested relief in appeal and left the appellant to pursue appropriate remedy before the High Court.

Conclusion: The challenge to the adjustment was not entertained in appellate jurisdiction and no relief was granted to the appellant.

---