9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (4) TMI 90 - AT - Central ExciseDuty involved does not exceed fifty thousand rupees - Duty involved in this appeal is only Rs.13,604/-, so the appeal can not be entertained by the Tribunal in view of second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 submission of revenue that dispute involved is of recurring nature and therefore, notwithstanding the duty involved, the appeal may be entertained, is not acceptable
Issues:
Preliminary objection regarding the admissibility of the appeal based on the duty involved. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI raised a preliminary objection by the assessee-respondents concerning the admissibility of the appeal due to the duty involved amounting to Rs.13,604. The second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invoked, which allows the Tribunal to refuse to admit an appeal where the duty involved does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. The Revenue argued that despite the duty amount, the appeal should be entertained as the dispute was of a recurring nature. However, it was noted that the dispute or issue in question had not arisen afresh during the appeal process, and thus could not be considered as recurring. The President of the Tribunal concluded that considering the duty involved, the appeal was not suitable for admission. In the detailed analysis, it was highlighted that Section 35B of the Act governs appeals to the Appellate Tribunal, with the second proviso providing discretion to refuse admission for appeals where the duty involved is below a specified threshold. The learned DR for the Revenue failed to establish that the dispute was of a recurring nature, and without any fresh occurrence during the appeal, it was deemed inappropriate to entertain the appeal based on the duty amount alone. The President, after hearing both parties, concluded that due to the duty involved, the appeal was not fit for consideration and subsequently dismissed it in limine. The decision emphasized that dismissing the appeal on this ground would not prevent the dispute from being raised in a future case for proper adjudication by the Tribunal.
|
