(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) HEARD counsel for the parties. The Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Meerut by his order of 31/12/1990 directed the Assistant Collector to take into consideration the various submissions and calculations submitted by the parties and the observations made by him and work out the correct demand amount after giving full opportunity to the parties and to enforce the realisation of short levy under Section 11-A of the central Excises and Salt Act. 1944. Pursuant to this order, the Assistant Collector by his order of 20/3/1992 adjudicated the matter afresh. However, when the appellant preferred an appeal against it to the Collector (Appeals), the Collector (Appeals) rejected it on the ground that since the Assistant Collectors order of 20/3/1992 had been passed pursuant to the directions contained in the order of the Collector, the appeal lay to the tribunal and not to him. When the appellant thereafter approached the Tribunal, the tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was delayed. (3) THEREAFTER, the appellant approached the High court and the High court directed the appellant to approach this court. (4) IT is, therefore, obvious that the Collector (Appeals) was wrong in asking the appellant to approach the tribunal against the order of the Assistant Collector passed on 20/3/1992. It is not disputed before us that the appeal lay before the Collector (Appeals) against the said order of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had wrongly directed the appellant to approach the Tribunal against the said order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 31/3/1993 and consequently the orders of the Tribunal and the High court and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals) and direct him to hear the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector dated 20/3/1992 according to law. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.