1983 (8) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Appeal u/s 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
2. Interpretation of the term "unavoidable accident" in Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944

Summary:

Maintainability of Appeal u/s 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The Tribunal examined whether the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was maintainable. The Departmental Representative argued that the order was administrative and not appealable. However, the Tribunal held that the term "adjudicating authority" should be interpreted in a broader sense, encompassing any authority competent to pass any order or decision under the Act. The Tribunal referred to various dictionary definitions and previous judgments, concluding that the order in question was indeed an adjudicating order and hence appealable.

Interpretation of the term "unavoidable accident" in Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The main issue was whether the loss of goods due to theft or robbery could be considered an "unavoidable accident" under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants argued that the term should be interpreted liberally to include theft and robbery, citing various judgments, including those from the Calcutta High Court and Delhi High Court. The Tribunal agreed with this broader interpretation, holding that the term "unavoidable accident" includes theft and robbery.

The Tribunal directed the Revenue to refund the duty paid by the appellants, as the loss of goods due to hijacking was covered under the term "unavoidable accident."

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal held that:
1. The appeal was maintainable under Section 35B(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. The loss of goods due to theft or robbery is covered under the term "unavoidable accident" in Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.