B.K. CHAKRABORTY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the Order of Assistant Commissioner seeking to demand Rs. 28,888/ - (Rs. Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eight Only) within seven days from the date of receipt of the Order failing which excisable goods, plant machinery etc. of the appellants were liable to be attached with and disposed in terms of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the Order was issued by the Assistant Commissioner the learned advocate for the appellants was asked as to how the appeal can lie to Tribunal against the Order of the Assistant Commissioner. The learned advocate submitted that the last line of the Order states as under: -

(2.) I have considered the submissions. Since appeal against the Order of the Assistant Collector is not maintainable in Tribunal the matter was not heard on merits. I find that the two decisions cited by the appellants are not relevant as in both these cases the lower authorities simply communicated the Order of the Collector and primarily the Order was that of the Collector. In the present case the Order is of the Assistant Commissioner and only approval of the Commissioner was obtained. This would not render this Order as that of Commissioner. In view of this, I hold that since this is an Order passed by the Assistant Collector an appeal against the same will lie with the Commissioner (Appeals) and not with Tribunal.

(3.) I accordingly, dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.