Appeal forum depends on the law in force when filed; Collector (Appeals) had jurisdiction over an Additional Collector's order.

The forum for an appeal is determined by the law in force on the date of filing. On the prevailing rule position in February 1993, an appeal against an order of an Additional Collector of Central Excise lay to the Collector (Appeals) under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, and the jurisdiction objection was rejected because the amended position had already taken effect. The appeal was therefore correctly entertained by the Collector (Appeals), and the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise was required to be filed before the Collector (Appeals) under the rule position prevailing at the relevant time, and whether the Collector (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal was filed in February 1993. On the rule position then prevailing, an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Collector was maintainable before the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The contention that the Collector (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction because the Additional Collector was included within the definition of Collector was rejected, as the relevant amended position had already come into force. No other merits were urged in the revenue appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly filed before the Collector (Appeals), and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal did not succeed and the order of the Collector (Appeals) was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The forum for an appeal is determined by the law in force on the date the appeal is filed, and where the then-prevailing rule directs appeals from orders of an Additional Collector to the Collector (Appeals), that forum has jurisdiction to decide the appeal.

---