2017 (9) TMI 1433 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - proviso (a) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - the case is related to loss of petroleum products on storage and the order is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the above provisions, the appeal should not lie before this forum as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide this appeal - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Maintainability of appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Kolkata. The respondent's advocate argued that the appeal is not maintainable citing the proviso (a) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and also referred to Section 35EE of the Act. The Revenue's representative reiterated the grounds of appeal. After hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the Judicial Member noted the contention of the respondent's advocate regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The relevant Section 35B of the Act was reproduced to support the decision.

The Judicial Member observed that the impugned order pertained to a case involving the loss of petroleum products on storage, and it was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Considering the specific provisions of Section 35B, it was concluded that the appeal should not be entertained by the Tribunal as it did not have jurisdiction to decide on such matters. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court, finalizing the decision on the issue of appeal jurisdiction under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.