2006 (5) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner in the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner demanding payment within a stipulated time, failing which excisable goods of the appellants would be attached and disposed of under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants argued that since the order had the approval of the Commissioner Central Excise, it should be treated as an order of the Commissioner, making the appeal maintainable before the Tribunal. Citing precedents, the appellants contended that orders communicated by lower authorities but originating from higher officials were appealable to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal noted that in the present case, the order was specifically issued by the Assistant Commissioner with only the approval of the Commissioner obtained, distinguishing it from the cited precedents where the lower authorities merely communicated the decisions of higher officials. Consequently, the Tribunal held that appeals against orders of Assistant Commissioners should be filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and not the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of maintainability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the specific nature of the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, which did not qualify it as an order of the Commissioner despite the approval obtained. The judgment clarified the distinction between orders originating from Assistant Commissioners and those communicated by them on behalf of higher officials, establishing the proper forum for appealing such orders within the excise legal framework.