9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter, contending that its jurisdiction was excluded in terms of clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35B of the Act. After hearing the arguments on this aspect, we are unable to conclude that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The proviso specifies the circumstances in which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Act. Clause (a) of this proviso reads as follows :- "(a) a case of loss of goods, where the loss occurs in transit from a factory to a warehouse or to another factory, or from one warehouse to another, or during the course of processing of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d "destroyed" are different words having different connotations. We are unable to accept the contention of the departmental representative that the word "lost" takes into its ambit that the goods destroyed also. The terms "lost" and "destroyed" are two different and separate words which mean different things. A reference to the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary shows "destruction" to mean "the action of destroying; demolition, devastation, slaughter". Among the many meanings of the word "loss", the meaning that we are concerned with is "the fact of losing someone or something, deprivation of or failure to keep a possession, attribute, faculty, etc." Destruction to our mind implies a situation in which the goods thus destroyed cease to exist. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of loss and not in the case of destruction. It is however not for us to speculate the rationality or otherwise of the rule. We have to apply the rule as it stands. By doing so we do have jurisdiction and therefore proceed to take up the stay application. 5. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assistant Commissioner in demanding duty on goods which the appellant manufactured and on which it did not pay duty because they were destroyed by a fire. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the application that was made to the Commissioner for remission of duty under Rule 49 was not accepted by him and therefore the applicant was liable to duty. Counsel for the applicant does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
