1988 (5) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of trade discounts and deductions by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Satara.
2. Appeal filed by respondent company before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.
3. Positive findings made by the Collector (Appeals) in favor of the respondent company.
4. Order-in-appeal setting aside the Assistant Collector's order and remanding the case for a fresh decision.
5. Appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise Pune against the order of the Collector (Appeals).
6. Preliminary objection raised regarding the competency and maintainability of the appeal.
7. Arguments presented by both parties regarding the appeal.
8. Consideration of the impugned order and observations made by the Collector (Appeals).
9. Decision on the maintainability of the instant appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the disallowance of trade discounts and deductions by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Satara, leading to an appeal by the respondent company before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector (Appeals) made positive findings in favor of the respondent, acknowledging the trade discounts as normal and admissible. However, the final operative order remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision, without specifically endorsing the findings. Subsequently, the Collector of Central Excise Pune filed an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), challenging certain aspects related to trade discounts and deductions.

A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competency and maintainability of the appeal by the respondent's advocate, arguing that the appeal only contested certain observations of the lower appellate authority and not the remand order itself. The Tribunal concurred with the respondent's position, noting that the impugned order was a remand order and the appeal did not challenge it. The Tribunal emphasized that challenging mere observations without contesting the remand order would disrupt the appellate procedure laid down in the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the respondent that the instant appeal was not maintainable due to the nature of the impugned order and the absence of a challenge to the remand directive. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements in appellate proceedings and not bypassing the established framework for redressal of grievances in excise matters.