2015 (1) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Order received in form of letter - Held that - Since the communication is in the form of a letter, same cannot be considered to be an order, required to be challenged before Commissioner (Appeals). Each and every communication/letter of the Revenue officer cannot be treated as an order. As such, I fully agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the said letter of Additional Commissioner is not an order required to be challenged before Commissioner (Appeals). - Letters, lower authorities have demanded interest on the confirmed demands. The appellant is at liberty to approach the department/proper officer for issuance of show cause notice for confirmation of demand and for proper adjudication of the same in terms of law declared by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kwality Ice Cream v. Union of India reported as 2012 (1) TMI 88 - Delhi High Court . - Decided against Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the demand of interest by Revenue.
2. Appeal against the letter of Additional Commissioner.
3. Determination of whether the letter constitutes an order.
4. Applicability of interest on confirmed demands.
5. Right of the appellant to approach the department for proper adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the challenge against the demand of interest by the Revenue following the confirmation of dues against the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue demanded interest from the appellant based on the confirmed demands. The appellant contested this demand, leading to the present appeal.

2. The appeal specifically focused on the letter issued by the Additional Commissioner directing the appellant to pay the interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds that it was not maintainable as it was filed against the letter of the Additional Commissioner and not against an order. This raised the question of whether the letter constituted an order that needed to be challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Upon examination of the communication from the Additional Commissioner, the Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the letter did not qualify as an order that required challenging. It was emphasized that not every communication or letter from a Revenue officer could be considered an order. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed that the letter of the Additional Commissioner was not subject to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Despite rejecting the appeals, the Tribunal acknowledged the right of the appellant to approach the department or the proper officer for the issuance of a show cause notice for the confirmation of demand and proper adjudication. This direction was provided in light of the legal precedent established by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a relevant case, allowing the appellant the opportunity for due process and legal recourse.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals based on the observations regarding the nature of the communication from the Additional Commissioner. However, it granted the appellant the liberty to seek proper adjudication through the appropriate channels as per the legal principles established by the Delhi High Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and seeking adjudication in accordance with the law.