Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Smithkline Beecham Asia Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 6 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(146)ELT307(TRI-BANG)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. At the outset, we find that the impugned order is not appealable order. The relevant impugned order is as under :-
"OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING : PORT AREA : VISAKHAPATNAM -35 IV/5/10/2001 HPU Dated 27 -2-2001 To M/s. SmithKline Beecham Asia Ltd., Rajahmundry.
Sir, Sub :- Request for provisional release of ENO fruit salt - Reg. *** Please refer to your letter dated 26-2-2001 on the above subject. The Commissioner has accorded permission for release of goods seized subject to the following conditions :-
i. Payment of differential duty by the Company ; ii. Further clearance from the factory should discharge the duty on the price of SABL. Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Dr. H.B. PRADHAN) Additional Commissioner."
2. On hearing both sides and on going through the letter addressed to M/s. SmithKline Beecham Asia Ltd., Rajahmundry, we find that the said letter was neither an order of adjudication nor an appealable order. In the view we have taken, these two appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.