Appealable order requirement limits challenge where only an intimation is issued and no speaking order is sought.

A communication merely conveying rejection of a request to destroy molasses was treated as an intimation and not as an appealable order. The text notes that the aggrieved party could have sought a formal speaking order and then pursued remedies, but did not do so. It also records that, once destruction was refused, duty liability arose, and the refund claim for duty paid under protest was not accepted. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the refund rejection sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the communication conveying rejection of the request for destruction of molasses was an appealable order, and whether the refund claim for duty paid under protest was maintainable.

Analysis: The communication dated 14-2-1989 was only an intimation of the Collector's decision and did not itself amount to an appealable order. The appellant could have sought a formal speaking order from the Collector and pursued legal remedies thereafter. Once the request for destruction was rejected, liability to pay duty arose. The appellant did not take further steps to secure an appealable order before the Collector.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of refund was not accepted, and the dismissal of the appeal was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order rejecting the refund stood sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere communication conveying a decision, without a formal appealable order, does not by itself furnish a basis for appellate challenge where the party fails to seek a speaking order and pursue the available remedy.

---