TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order of the Tribunal has on perusal of the letter dated 18th March, 2018 received by the Superintendent of Central Excise held that it does not decide any lis for the purpose of holding it to be an appealable order. This finding is a possible view on facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be said to be perverse. The question proposed does not give rise to any substantial question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 3. On 21st October, 2013 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise passed an order confirming a demand of ₹ 1,90,010/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and also imposing equivalent of penalty. It also orders recovery of interest at the appropriate rate. The above order was received by the Appellant on 3rd December, 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 2015 of the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal as not maintainable. This by recording the fact that communication of the Superintendent only communicates to the Appellant the amount of interest due from it. It did not decide any dispute / lis. Consequently, it upheld the order dated 22 May 2015 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). It also held that as such quantum is less than ₹ 2 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommunication from the Superintendent of Central Excise not deciding a lis / dispute as in this case for being an appellable order. Thus the aforesaid decision has no application to the present facts. 8. In the above view, the question (a) proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently question (b) as proposed also become academic. Thus not entertained. 9. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
