1985 (3) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeal against order under Section 35F of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting the appellants' stay application for dispensation of the pre-deposit of duty demanded under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The primary issue was whether an appeal lies to the Tribunal against an order made by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35F of the Act. Section 35B of the Act provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A, but it does not specifically allow appeals against orders under Section 35F. The discretion to dispense with pre-deposit under Section 35F is vested with the Appellate authority if undue hardship would be caused to the appellants.

The appellants contended that an appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order under Section 35F, citing various arguments. However, the Tribunal held that the order appealed against was made under Section 35F, as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in his order demanding the deposit of the duty amount. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory right and should be explicitly provided for in the statute. Since the Act does not allow for an appeal against an order under Section 35F, the present appeal was deemed not maintainable in law.

Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the contention that it had inherent power to entertain an appeal, citing previous judgments that did not address the specific issue at hand. The Tribunal clarified that the right to appeal to the Tribunal is limited to orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A, as per the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 does not provide for entertaining an appeal against an order passed by a lower authority, emphasizing that such appeals must be supported by statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the Act did not permit appeals to the Tribunal against orders made by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35F. The Tribunal rejected all contentions raised by the appellants and emphasized that the statutory framework must explicitly allow for appeals to maintain the integrity of the legal process.