Tribunal lacks jurisdiction on appeal for loss/destruction of goods in fire. Upheld Section 35B proviso.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the loss/destruction of goods in a fire, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act. Despite arguments distinguishing loss and destruction, the Tribunal upheld the binding nature of a previous Larger Bench decision, emphasizing that such cases fall under Section 35B proviso. The appellant was advised to seek redressal through the appropriate forum, as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals related to loss of goods in storage.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain appeal regarding loss/destruction of goods due to fire.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, regarding the remission of duty on goods damaged/lost in a fire at the appellant's godown. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the appeal, citing Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that there is a distinction between loss and destruction of goods, referring to previous judgments. The Revenue highlighted conflicting views on loss or destruction, leading to a reference to the Larger Bench. The Tribunal considered the submissions and observed that the appeal related to the loss/destruction of goods in a fire, questioning its jurisdiction based on the Larger Bench decision in Supercoats Industries' case.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and arguments presented by both sides. It noted that the appeal arose from the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order concerning the loss/destruction of goods due to a fire in 2006. Referring to the observations of the Larger Bench in Supercoats Industries' case, the Tribunal emphasized that loss, whether due to accident or otherwise, falls under the proviso of Section 35B. The Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals related to loss of goods in storage, as stated in the Central Excise Act. Despite the appellant's reliance on a different judgment, the Tribunal upheld the binding nature of the Larger Bench decision, dismissing the appeal. The appellant was advised to seek redressal through the appropriate forum for their grievance.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the jurisdictional issue regarding the appeal concerning the loss/destruction of goods in a fire. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and previous judgments, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. The parties were directed to pursue further remedies through the appropriate channels.

---