2016 (6) TMI 604 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal discretion to refusal of to admit the appeal - Held that - The present case, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) under Section 35A which is specified under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B. In view of Second proviso to Section 35B (1), this Tribunal has discretion to refuse of to admit the appeal in respect of order referred to clause (b) or Clause (c) or clause (d) where amount of duty, amount of fine or penalty determined by such order does not exceed ₹ 50,000/-(before 6/8/2014) and ₹ 2 Lakhs (on or after 6/8/2014). In view of the above discretion provided to this Tribunal, refuse to admit this appeal. Therefore appeal is dismissed only on the ground that amount is below threshold limit of ₹ 50,000/- without going into merit of the case.

Summary

Issues:
Refund amount involved in the case. Discretion of the Tribunal to admit or refuse appeal under Second proviso to Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 based on the amount of duty, fine, or penalty involved.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the refund amount at stake is Rs. 18,365. The Tribunal has the discretion under the Second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to decide whether to admit or refuse an appeal based on certain criteria. The relevant provision states that the Tribunal may refuse to admit an appeal if the amount of duty, fine, or penalty involved does not exceed Rs. 50,000 (before 6/8/2014) or Rs. 2 Lakhs (on or after 6/8/2014).

In this specific case, the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A, falling under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B. As per the Second proviso to Section 35B, the Tribunal has the authority to refuse to admit an appeal if the amount involved is below the specified threshold limits. Therefore, the Tribunal exercised its discretion and dismissed the appeal solely on the basis that the amount in question was below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,000, without delving into the merits of the case.

The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and the discretionary powers vested in the Tribunal to determine the admissibility of appeals based on the financial thresholds set by the law. In this instance, the Tribunal's decision was guided by the specific monetary limit prescribed by the Second proviso to Section 35B, leading to the dismissal of the appeal solely on the grounds of the amount involved being below the stipulated threshold.