2008 (11) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in appeal related to loss of goods in storage.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a preliminary objection raised regarding the maintainability of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The contention was based on the provision of clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 35B, which specifies that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide appeals related to orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in cases of loss of goods during transit or storage. The Counsel for the respondent argued that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) pertained to the loss of goods in storage at the respondent's factory, thereby falling under the provision that ousts the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

In response, the learned Jt. CDR argued that clause (a) of the proviso only covers cases of remission of duty, whereas in the present scenario, duty was demanded on goods allegedly lost in a fire. Therefore, it was contended that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was not ousted in this case. The Tribunal carefully considered both submissions and analyzed the nature of cases involving remission of duty, clarifying that such cases are typically decided by the Commissioner, not the Commissioner (Appeals). As the order in question related to the claimed loss of goods in storage at the factory, the Tribunal concluded that its jurisdiction was indeed ousted in this matter.

Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondent and directed the Registry to return the papers to the Revenue for further action before the appropriate authority. The judgment highlights the importance of understanding the specific provisions governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in cases involving loss of goods during storage or transit, emphasizing the need for clarity in differentiating between various types of cases to determine the Tribunal's authority to adjudicate on appeals.