https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170181 A communication that merely conveyed an earlier rejection of permission to destroy goods and noted non-compliance did not amount to a final adjudicatory order on the pending remission request. The competent authority had not yet decided the application on merits, so the communication could not be treated as an appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The request had been addressed to the Commissioner because the duty amount crossed the limit prescribed for lower officers under the remission instructions, but that did not convert the impugned communication into a final decision. The revision challenge accordingly failed. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2015 15:21:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170181 A communication that merely conveyed an earlier rejection of permission to destroy goods and noted non-compliance did not amount to a final adjudicatory order on the pending remission request. The competent authority had not yet decided the application on merits, so the communication could not be treated as an appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The request had been addressed to the Commissioner because the duty amount crossed the limit prescribed for lower officers under the remission instructions, but that did not convert the impugned communication into a final decision. The revision challenge accordingly failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170181