2008 (11) TMI 456 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against detention order dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Challenge of detention order before Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Provisional release of goods and appeal against detention order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The Tribunal found that no demand was confirmed against the appellant, and no penalty was imposed necessitating pre-deposit under Section 35F. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as not maintainable since it was filed against the detention order. The Tribunal noted that staying the operation of the detention order during the appeal before the Tribunal would not benefit the appellant. Consequently, the stay petition was dismissed as infructuous, and the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal itself due to the limited issue involved.

Issue 2: The goods, marble slabs, imported by the appellant were initially detained by the jurisdictional Superintendent for investigating whether the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture. Subsequently, the detention was converted into the seizure of goods. The appellant applied for provisional release of the goods, which was granted by the Central Excise authorities after accepting the application.

Issue 3: The appellants challenged the detention order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that such a detention order was not appealable. The appellate authority rejected the appeal based on the reasoning that the detention order was part of an ongoing investigation, and the authorities had the power to continue the investigation without interference from the appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal concurred with this view, emphasizing that at the stage of investigation, where the goods had already been released to the appellant, there was no basis for the appellant to be aggrieved by the detention order. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeals, disposing of the stay petitions as well.

This judgment clarifies the limitations on appealing detention orders during ongoing investigations and emphasizes the need for due process and proper investigation by the Revenue authorities without undue interference from the appellate bodies at the initial stages of inquiries.