2016 (6) TMI 611 - 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: Appeal admission discretion under Second proviso to Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 based on duty amount involved.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Member (Judicial) Mr. Ramesh Nair pertains to the discretion of the Appellate Tribunal under the Second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal has the authority to either refuse or admit an appeal based on the duty amount involved in the case. The relevant section provides for the circumstances under which the Tribunal may refuse to admit an appeal, specifically in cases where the duty amount, fine, or penalty determined by the order does not exceed certain monetary limits. In this instance, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A, falling under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B.

The Second proviso to Section 35B(1) grants the Tribunal the discretion to refuse to admit an appeal if the duty amount, fine, or penalty determined by the order does not exceed ?50,000 (before 6/8/2014) or ?2 Lakhs (on or after 6/8/2014). In the present case, the duty amount involved was ?3613, which is below the threshold limit set by the statute. Consequently, Member (Judicial) Mr. Ramesh Nair exercised the discretion provided by the law and refused to admit the appeal solely on the ground that the amount in question did not meet the prescribed threshold. It is important to note that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the statutory provisions and the specific monetary limit stipulated in the Second proviso to Section 35B, without delving into the merits of the case. The judgment underscores the Tribunal's adherence to the legal framework and its obligation to apply the statutory provisions in determining the admissibility of appeals based on the monetary thresholds specified in the law.