1985 (3) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g for dispensation of the pre-deposit of the duty demanded. 2.  This appeal is listed for hearing today on a limited question as to its maintainability. 3.  The order appealed against was made under Section 35F of the Act. The appeals to the Appellate Tribunal are provided under Section 35B of the Act. This Section provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A. Neither this Section nor any other Section in the Act provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35F of the Act. Section 35F requires that a person desirous of appealing against a decision or an order against which an appeal is pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n that the Tribunal had inherent power to entertain an appeal, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 71 ITR 815 - in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Mohammed Kunhi and the judgment of this Bench reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 357 (Tribunal) M/s. Navrang Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. 6.  Let me now proceed to consider the contentions in their seriatim. The observations contained in the order of the Collector (Appeals) cannot confer a right of appeal if such a right is not statutorily conferred on the appellants. Shri Subedar conceded that the observation of the Collector (Appeals) by itself would not confer on the appellants a right to appeal. The right to appeal is not a common law right. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t result in undue hardship to the appellants pending consideration of their appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants are therefore, required to deposit the said amount immediately, and produce evidence of such deposit within a week after payment of the amount demanded otherwise their appeal is liable to be dismissed for failure to comply with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.' Thus there can be no iota of doubt that the order appealed against was made under Section 35F. As the Act makes no provision for an appeal against such an order, the present appeal is not maintainable in law. 7.  The contention of Shri Subedar that the Tribunal h....