Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over exported goods appeal under Central Excise Act; seek revision application.

The Tribunal concurred with the preliminary objection raised by the JDR, determining that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in cases of goods exported without duty payment. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and the appropriate remedy was identified as filing a revision application under Section 35EE with the Central Government of India. The appeal was disposed of as not maintainable based on the legal provisions governing the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Demand of duty cleared under AR-4 by debiting the bond of duty involved.
2. Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding goods cleared for export without payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case pertains to the demand of duty cleared under AR-4 by debiting the bond of duty involved. The appellant allegedly failed to submit proof of exports, leading to the claim that they must pay the duty involved on the goods cleared for export. Both lower authorities found the appellants liable for the duty involved in such clearances. The primary contention revolves around the duty demand and the submission of export proof by the appellant.

2. The Ld. JDR raised a preliminary objection concerning the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under the first proviso to Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The objection highlighted that the appeal should have been filed with the Joint Secretary under Section 35EE of the Act. The proviso explicitly states instances where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, including cases of goods exported outside India without duty payment. Since the goods in question were cleared for export without duty payment through a bond, the Tribunal was deemed to have no jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of the appeal.

3. The Tribunal concurred with the preliminary objection raised by the JDR, noting the specific provisions of the first proviso to Section 35B (1) which limit the Tribunal's jurisdiction in cases of goods exported outside India without duty payment. As a result, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and the appropriate remedy was identified as filing a revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with the Central Government of India. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not maintainable, in accordance with the legal provisions governing the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.

---