Appellate jurisdiction depends on statute: Additional Collector of Customs orders were held not appealable to the Tribunal.

Section 109(1)(8) of the Finance Act, 1992 treats the Collector of Customs as including an Additional Collector of Customs, but excludes that deeming rule for Chapter XV of the Customs Act, 1962. Because Chapter XV governs appeals, an order made by an Additional Collector of Customs was not appealable to the Tribunal on that basis, and jurisdiction could not be created by a reference in the impugned order itself. The proper appellate forum was the Collector of Customs (Appeals), so the appeal before the Tribunal was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against an order of the Additional Collector of Customs lay to the Tribunal or to the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

Analysis: Section 109(1)(8) of the Finance Act, 1992 treats the Collector of Customs as including an Additional Collector of Customs except for the purposes of Chapter XV of the Customs Act, 1962. Since Chapter XV governs appeals, the Additional Collector's order could not be treated as an order appealable to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that a remark in the impugned order suggesting an appeal to CEGAT could not create jurisdiction where the statute did not confer it.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal and the proper forum was the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended on the ground that the Tribunal lacked appellate jurisdiction, and the appellant was left to pursue the statutory remedy before the correct appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction for an appeal exists only where the statute confers it, and an Additional Collector of Customs is excluded from the appeal chapter for that purpose.

---