9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 276 - AT - CustomsAcceptance or rejection of Appeal - Discretion of Tribunal to admit or refuse the appeal - Second proviso to Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - in view of the discretion provided to the Tribunal, the appeal is dismissed, only on the ground that amount is below threshold limit of ₹ 2,00,000/-, without going into merit of the case - appeal rejected.
Issues:
Admissibility of appeal under Second proviso to Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 based on penalty amount below threshold limit. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved the issue of the admissibility of an appeal under the Second proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal had the discretion to refuse or admit the appeal based on the penalty amount involved in the case. The Tribunal referred to the provision which states that the Appellate Tribunal may refuse to admit an appeal where the value of confiscated goods, difference in duty, or penalty amount does not exceed two lakh rupees. In this case, the penalty amount involved in all three appeals was found to be Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal highlighted the provision of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, which outlines the grounds for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that it had the discretion to refuse to admit an appeal if the penalty amount involved falls below the specified threshold limit. In exercising this discretion, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal solely on the ground that the amount in question was below the threshold limit of Rs. 2,00,000/-, without delving into the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal was refused admission based on the penalty amount being below the prescribed limit, as per the statutory provision. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions governing the admissibility of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision to refuse admission to the appeal was based on a strict interpretation of the threshold limit set by the law. By dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of the penalty amount being below the prescribed threshold, the Tribunal demonstrated its adherence to the legal framework and statutory requirements in determining the admissibility of appeals. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of complying with the statutory provisions and thresholds when seeking redress through the appellate process in customs matters.
|
