Clandestine Removal and Tribunal Jurisdiction: unproven storage loss could not sustain demand, and statutory revisional forum applied

An allegation of clandestine removal failed because the record contained no direct, collateral or circumstantial evidence of removal of molasses; the materials only showed loss during storage in the crushing season. On jurisdiction, the dispute was treated as one falling within the revisional mechanism under the statutory scheme, and the Tribunal held that its powers could not be expanded beyond the jurisdiction expressly conferred by law. The appeal was therefore not entertained on merits, and the stay application became infructuous.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged loss of molasses in storage was supported by evidence of clandestine removal. (ii) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, or whether the matter fell within the revisional jurisdiction under the statutory scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged loss of molasses in storage was supported by evidence of clandestine removal.

Analysis: The material on record did not disclose direct, collateral, or circumstantial evidence showing clandestine removal. The show cause notices and adjudication findings only reflected loss during storage in the crushing season, and there was no indication of detection by the excise authorities or of goods being found removed elsewhere.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not established.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, or whether the matter fell within the revisional jurisdiction under the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The dispute was treated as one relating to losses falling within the scope of the third proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for which the revisional authority was considered the proper forum. The Tribunal also noted that its civil court powers under Section 129C(7) and Section 129C(8) of the Customs Act, 1962 were limited and did not enlarge its jurisdiction beyond the statutory confines.

Conclusion: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the grievance and the matter lay before the revisional authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not entertained on merits and was dismissed, with the stay application also going out as infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme assigns a dispute to revisional jurisdiction, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction beyond the limits expressly conferred by law, and an unsubstantiated allegation of clandestine removal cannot sustain the demand.

---