1989 (2) TMI 290 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Competence and maintainability of the appeal against the order appropriating a sum of Rs. 50,000 under the B-11 Bond and imposition of a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.

In this case, the appeal was directed against an order appropriating Rs. 50,000 under the B-11 Bond executed by the appellant during the pendency of adjudication when the seized goods were provisionally released. The Tribunal questioned the competence of the appeal as forfeiture of the specified sum in a bond during adjudication is not appealable under the Act. The Tribunal referred to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which defines "adjudicating authority" and specifies the duty of officers to adjudge cases of confiscation and penalties through a quasi-judicial process. The appellant sought provisional release of goods by executing a bond but failed to produce the goods as required, leading to the enforcement of the bond and forfeiture of Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal held that this forfeiture does not constitute an order of adjudication and is not appealable under Section 35B of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot go beyond the confines of the law and reject the appeal regarding the appropriation of Rs. 50,000.

Regarding the imposition of a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, the appellant did not press the issue, and the fine was confirmed. The Tribunal's decision focused on the legal aspects of the appeal's competence and maintainability, highlighting the statutory limitations on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the distinction between adjudicatory orders and enforcement of bonds during the pendency of adjudication. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal provisions and the boundaries of the Tribunal's authority in deciding appeals related to excise matters.