1995 (8) TMI 280 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal against Trade Notice No. 112-C.E./94.
2. Nature of Trade Notice and its appealability.
3. Interpretation of Section 35B(1)(a) of Central Excises and Salt Act.
4. Tribunal's power to entertain appeals against trade notices.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case was the maintainability of the appeal against Trade Notice No. 112-C.E./94 issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate. The appellant argued that the communication in the trade notice, along with a subsequent letter from the Assistant Collector, constituted an appealable order. However, the Revenue contended that a trade notice is not an order of adjudication but a general instruction to the trade under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, hence not appealable.

2. The Tribunal carefully considered the content of the Trade Notice No. 112-C.E./94, which provided instructions to the trade regarding procedures at various stages. The party had challenged this notice before the High Court, which rejected the challenge. Subsequently, a representation was made to the Collector for modification, and a clarification was issued by the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal noted that the High Court did not provide specific directions or observations regarding the appealability of the notice.

3. Regarding the interpretation of Section 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the Tribunal emphasized that any person aggrieved by a decision or order passed by the Collector of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Trade notices, however, are issued for the benefit of the trade under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules and do not constitute orders of adjudication by the Collector.

4. The Tribunal addressed the argument that it should exercise inherent power to entertain an appeal against the trade notice. It clarified that while appeal is a statutory right, it is not a fundamental or inherent right. Since trade notices are not appealable orders and any communication related to them is not an order of adjudication, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal in this case was not maintainable and dismissed it on that basis.