Revisional jurisdiction in excise loss cases is limited to transit or processing loss; post-manufacture theft falls outside it.

Revisional jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 35B read with Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to specified categories such as loss of goods, rebate of duty on exported goods, and export without payment of duty. In loss-of-goods matters, the provision is limited to transit loss or processing loss within the contemplated statutory situations. Cigarettes stolen from the factory after manufacture, while lying in finished condition, constitute post-manufacturing theft or storage loss and do not fall within those categories. The Revision Application was therefore not maintainable before the Government and was rejected for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revision Application before the Government was maintainable and within jurisdiction where remission of central excise duty was claimed in respect of cigarettes stolen while lying in the factory.

Analysis: The statutory revisional jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 35B read with Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to specified categories, including cases involving loss of goods, rebate of duty on exported goods, and export without payment of duty. In respect of loss of goods, the jurisdiction is further limited to transit loss or processing loss occurring in the situations contemplated by the proviso. The cigarettes in question were stolen from the factory after manufacture and while lying in finished condition. Such post-manufacturing theft or storage loss does not fall within processing loss or the other categories covered by the revisional provision.

Conclusion: The Revision Application was not maintainable before the Government and was rejected for want of jurisdiction.

---