1985 (7) TMI 354 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and decide matters transferred from revision petitions before the Central Government.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and decide matters transferred from revision petitions before the Central Government. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the amendments made to Section 35B by the Finance Act, 1984, specifically regarding cases of loss of goods in transit. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether it retains jurisdiction over such matters, considering the exclusions and provisions introduced by the amendment.

The Tribunal first delves into the statutory framework, highlighting the provisions of Section 35B and the subsequent amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1984. The amendment inserted a proviso excluding appeals related to loss of goods in transit from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal noted that the exclusion specifically pertained to appeals from orders of the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A, not from orders of the Appellate Collector. This distinction was crucial in understanding the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction post-amendment.

Despite the exclusion of certain appeals, the Tribunal emphasized that the cases in question were not appeals filed by aggrieved parties under Section 35B(b) but were proceedings transferred from the Central Government pursuant to Section 35P(2). The Tribunal reasoned that since Section 35P itself was not amended by the Finance Act, 1984, the proceedings transferred under it remained unaffected by the jurisdictional exclusions introduced in Section 35B. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it retained jurisdiction over the matters transferred, even in cases where its jurisdiction was purportedly excluded by the amendment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal clarified that while it had jurisdiction over the matters, the determination of questions related to the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for assessment purposes was not at issue in the present cases. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the matters to be transferred to the South Regional Bench for adjudication, emphasizing that the Regional Bench had the authority to hear and decide the issues at hand.

In conclusion, the judgment elucidates the nuanced interplay between statutory amendments, jurisdictional exclusions, and the Tribunal's authority to adjudicate matters transferred from the Central Government. By meticulously analyzing the legislative framework and the specific circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction over the transferred matters while directing their adjudication by the appropriate Regional Bench.