Tribunal dismisses appeal on goods loss during storage; lacks jurisdiction due to Section 35B proviso.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the loss of goods during storage, citing lack of jurisdiction due to a proviso added to Section 35B in 1984. The Tribunal interpreted the proviso to exclude cases of loss in transit, processing, and storage, whether in a factory or warehouse. Despite the appellant's argument based on punctuation and a public notice, the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent's broader interpretation. The Tribunal directed the registry to return the papers, emphasizing that appeals against certain losses lie with the Tribunal except for losses during storage as per the proviso.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear an appeal regarding loss of goods during storage.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was against an order regarding the loss of molasses in 1984 during storage. The main issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of a proviso added to Section 35B in 1984. The proviso stated that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal in cases of loss of goods in transit, during processing, or in storage, whether in a factory or warehouse.

The appellant argued that the proviso only excluded loss in transit and during processing, not loss in storage. They highlighted the presence of a comma after the word "storage," indicating that loss in storage, whether in a factory or warehouse, was not excluded. The appellant also cited a public notice by the Tribunal allowing cases of loss of goods to be heard by Regional Special Benches.

On the other hand, the respondent contended that the proviso covered loss in transit, processing, and storage, regardless of the location. They argued that the intention was to exclude all types of loss scenarios mentioned in the proviso.

The Tribunal analyzed the proviso and observed that it was not clearly worded. However, it interpreted the proviso to exclude cases of loss in transit, during processing, and in storage, whether in a factory or warehouse. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's argument about the comma placement and repetition in the wording was not convincing.

Additionally, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that appeals regarding loss of goods should be filed before the Central Government, not the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the case at hand, involving loss during storage, fell under the proviso, and therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the petition as not maintainable and directed the registry to return the papers. The judgment emphasized that appeals against orders of Collectors and Addl. Collectors, even in cases of loss of goods in transit, processing, or storage, still lie with the Tribunal, except when the loss occurs during storage as per the proviso.

---