https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52201 A jurisdiction-excluding proviso must be read strictly by its express wording, and the distinction between goods "lost" and goods "destroyed" cannot be ignored; on that basis, the Tribunal's jurisdiction was not excluded. Where excisable goods were destroyed by fire in the factory before clearance and the claim for remission under Rule 49 remained unchallenged, the statutory conditions for non-payment of duty were satisfied, so the duty demand could not stand. The stay application was therefore allowed and recovery of the demanded duty was stayed in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:41:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52201 A jurisdiction-excluding proviso must be read strictly by its express wording, and the distinction between goods "lost" and goods "destroyed" cannot be ignored; on that basis, the Tribunal's jurisdiction was not excluded. Where excisable goods were destroyed by fire in the factory before clearance and the claim for remission under Rule 49 remained unchallenged, the statutory conditions for non-payment of duty were satisfied, so the duty demand could not stand. The stay application was therefore allowed and recovery of the demanded duty was stayed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52201