https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101592 An appeal to the Tribunal did not lie against a communication signed by the Superintendent (Adjudication) because he was not the adjudicating authority. The impugned letter was treated as an administrative, interlocutory communication rather than an appealable adjudication order passed by the Commissioner. On that basis, the Tribunal held the appeal to be not maintainable and declined to entertain the stay petition as well. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:58:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101592 An appeal to the Tribunal did not lie against a communication signed by the Superintendent (Adjudication) because he was not the adjudicating authority. The impugned letter was treated as an administrative, interlocutory communication rather than an appealable adjudication order passed by the Commissioner. On that basis, the Tribunal held the appeal to be not maintainable and declined to entertain the stay petition as well. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101592