1. Originally preferred as a Revision Application before the Central Government, now on transfer to this Tribunal, the matter is being treated as an appeal by us.
2. The appeal is directed against order-in-Appeal bearing C. No.137-C.E./APPL/JPR/79, dated 2-5-1981 (Order-in-Appeal No. 9/JPR/C.E./81 dated 2-5-1981).
3. At the outset, the learned J.D.R. pointed out that in pursuance of the Appellate Collector's order dated 2-5-1981, the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Division, Kota has passed an order dated 31-7-1981.
This order bore No. C. No. V(68) 3/7/C.E. 11/79/6087-88 dated 31-7-1981. The appellants preferred another appeal against the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kota's order dated 31-7-1931.
This appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi vide his order C. No. 292-C.E./APPL/ JPR/81 dated 22-6-1982 bearing Order-in-Appeal No. 63/JPR/82. The learned JDR submits that with the passing of the Appellate Collector's Order dated 22-6-1982, the order of the Appellate Collector dated 2-5-1981 ceases to survive and the present appeal (Originally preferred as a Revision Application) was not at all maintainable in law. Shri Sunder Rajan submitted that the present appeal deserved to be dismissed on this preliminary ground. Shri Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants took us over the facts of the case and referred to the earlier adjudication by the Assistant Collector with reference to which appellate order dated 2-5-1981 was passed. The learned counsel was specifically asked whether the appellants had participated in the second round of proceedings before the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector culminating in the issue of the Appellate Collector's order dated 22-6-1982, as would appear from the record. The learned counsel replied in the affirmative. However, the learned counsel's plea is that the matter which was taken up before the lower authorities had not moved from the intial stages in terms as it was decided by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 21-9-1979. He further submitted that even the subsequent order passed by the Assistant Collector on 31-7-1981 was not a complete order because it did not finally dispose of the issues raised before him. The prayer of the learned counsel is that the order dated 2-5-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, still survives and the appellants are entitled to challenge the same.
4. We have heard the learned counsel with great attention. We are unable, however, to accept his contention that the order dated 2-5-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise still survives. The order dated 2-5-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise was a remand order directing the Assistant Collector to go into the matter. Further, in pursuance of the said order of the Appellate Collector, fresh proceedings were drawn up by the Assistant Collector resulting in the issue of order in-original dated 31-7-1981. The appellants thereafter agitated the same issue before the Appellate Collector for a second time and the Appellate Collector issued a second order dated 22-6-1982. We, can take cognisance of the order dated 22-6-1982 only if an appeal against it is preferred by the appellants.
Record shows that no appeal against the order dated 22-6-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi has been filed in this Tribunal. It is for the appellants, if they so desire, to pursue that matter. So far as the appellate order dated 2-5-1981 is concerned, as we have observed earlier, the same does not survive and, therefore, the appeal before us is not maintainable in law,