https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91405 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. en-us Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:26:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91405 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91405