Non-adjudicatory departmental communication is not an appealable order, and procedural rules cannot create power to compel a speaking order.

A departmental communication that merely stated it may not be legally possible to issue a speaking order did not determine any rights or liabilities and therefore was not an appealable order or decision. Because the communication was non-adjudicatory, appellate jurisdiction could not be invoked. Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 also did not empower the Tribunal to direct the Commissioner to pass a speaking appealable order. In the absence of both maintainable appeal and procedural authority, the requested direction could not be issued and the appeal was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a departmental communication declining to issue a speaking order constituted an appealable order or decision; (ii) Whether the Tribunal had power under the procedural rules to direct the Commissioner to issue a speaking appealable order.

Issue (i): Whether a departmental communication declining to issue a speaking order constituted an appealable order or decision.

Analysis: The communication merely expressed the view that it may not be legally possible to issue a speaking order at that stage. It did not determine any lis, record any adjudicatory decision, or amount to an appealable order. The Tribunal treated such a communication as insufficient to found appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The communication was not an appealable order or decision.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had power under the procedural rules to direct the Commissioner to issue a speaking appealable order.

Analysis: Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 did not confer power on the Tribunal to compel the Commissioner to pass such an order. In the absence of appellate maintainability and corresponding procedural authority, the requested direction could not be issued.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no power to issue the requested direction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held not maintainable and the Tribunal declined to grant the consequential relief sought by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-adjudicatory departmental communication that does not determine rights or liabilities is not an appealable order, and procedural rules cannot be used to create jurisdiction to direct the passing of a speaking order where none exists.

---