2018 (12) TMI 1421 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the Communication dated 18.03.2015 from the Superintendent is NOT Decision or Order? - Held that - The impugned order of the Tribunal has on perusal of the letter dated 18th March, 2018 received by the Superintendent of Central Excise held that it does not decide any lis for the purpose of holding it to be an appealable order. This finding is a possible view on facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be said to be perverse. The question proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of a communication from the Superintendent of Central Excise as a decision or order.
2. Maintainability of an appeal under Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on the quantum involved.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Tribunal's order regarding the communication from the Superintendent of Central Excise dated 18th March, 2015. The Appellant questioned whether this communication constituted a decision or order. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had earlier confirmed a demand and imposed penalties on the Appellant, who then sought quantification of interest. The Superintendent communicated the interest amount, which was later appealed to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that the communication did not decide any dispute and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) based on the quantum involved, which was less than ?2 lakhs. The High Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable, distinguishing it from a previous case cited by the Appellant.

2. The second issue revolved around the maintainability of the appeal under Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the quantum of interest involved, which was less than ?2 lakhs. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the communication from the Superintendent did not constitute an appellable order. Consequently, the questions of law proposed by the Appellant were deemed not substantial, and the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the reasoning behind the High Court's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.