ORDER
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred under Sec. 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 by the appellant against an order, dated 27-11-2003 (Ann. T) passed by CESTAT in Appeal No. E/674/2003-B of 2000 which in turn arise out of an order passed by the Commissioner in Case No. 02/Comm./ Cex/Ind/2003, dated 23-1-2003.
2. The impugned order reads as under :-
“The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order simply endorsed the earlier order passed by the Assistant Commissioner where the facility for depositing of duty fort- nightly was forfeited. That order was not challenged by the appellants. Therefore, in the present proceedings, the appellants have no legal right to challenge the earlier order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which had attained-finality. The present appeal is dismissed.”
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the order impugned herein we are of the considered opinion that this appeal has no merit whatsoever and hence it deserves to be dismissed in limine.
4. Indeed it is clear from mere reading of the impugned order quoted supra. In other words the order impugned being self explanatory in itself it does not call for any interference in further appeal by this Court. We are completely in agreement with what is observed by the learned Member of the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal.
5. The short question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal at the instance of appellant was whether Commissioner, Central Excise was justified in not granting the facility of deposit of duty fortnightly to the appellant. While upholding this the Tribunal noticed that the main order by which this benefit was taken away from the appellant was not challenged by the appellant in appeal. It is on this basis, the Tribunal held that when the main order itself was not challenged by the appellant which has now attained finality then in such event the appellant can not be allowed to challenge the same in these proceedings. We find no error of law in such finding as in our opinion it is legal, proper and based on sound reasoning.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) = 2003 (2) SCC 169 made efforts to raise several issues in appeal. We are afraid, this indulgence cannot be granted to the appellant in this appeal for the first time. It is for the reason that no such issues were gone into before the Tribunal nor any finding was recorded one way or other. Secondly in this appeal no fresh issue can be raised which were not raised in appeal before the Tribunal.
7. In our considered opinion, thus the appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law. As a necessary consequence the appeal, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine, resulting in upholding of the order passed by the Tribunal.
8. No order as to cost.