1987 (2) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal - Interlocutory order passed by Collector (Appeals) rejecting the appellant s application for waiver of prior deposit of duty

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras.
2. Consideration of balance sheet and financial particulars in the impugned order.
3. Applicability of the ruling in the case of 'India Automotive Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna'.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras was directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, which rejected the appellant's appeal due to non-deposit of duty. The tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal on the same day without prior deposit to meet the technical requirements of the law. The appellant argued that despite the appeal being with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the right of appeal was lost under the impugned order. However, the tribunal held that since the impugned order was interlocutory in nature, the appeal was not maintainable before the tribunal. The tribunal emphasized that dismissal of the appellant's application for waiver of prior deposit did not entitle the appellant to appeal before the tribunal as there was no bar on filing repetitive applications before the same authority for reconsideration.

2. The appellant contended that the balance sheet and financial particulars, along with the plea regarding the legality of the original order, were not considered in the impugned order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The tribunal acknowledged that the appellant could address this issue by submitting another application before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for reconsideration, without being barred by the principle of res judicata. The tribunal clarified that the appellant had the option to file a second interlocutory application seeking waiver, if necessary, to address the concerns regarding the balance sheet and financial particulars not being considered in the impugned order.

3. The appellant relied on a ruling in the case of 'India Automotive Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna', but the tribunal determined that this ruling was not directly applicable to the present case. The tribunal explained that the ruling cited by the appellant involved a different scenario where the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had conclusively disposed of the order, unlike in the present appeal where the issue was still pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on the interlocutory nature of the impugned order and the absence of a bar on filing repetitive applications before the same authority for reconsideration.