2016 (11) TMI 1174 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - amount involved is ₹ 58,862/- only - second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - this is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and dismiss the appeal on the said ground, leaving the issues open - appeal dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944

The judgment pertains to an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD where the Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue argued that the appeal involving an amount of &8377; 58,862 is not maintainable as per the second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The second proviso allows the Tribunal to refuse admission of an appeal where the difference in duty involved or the duty involved, or the amount of fine or penalty determined by the order, does not exceed two lakh rupees. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments presented by the Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue and invoked the said provisions to dismiss the appeal on the grounds mentioned, without delving into the substantive issues of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the issues were left open for future consideration. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, concluding the proceedings.

This judgment primarily revolves around the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key issue at hand was whether the appeal involving an amount of &8377; 58,862 was maintainable under the second proviso to Section 35B. The Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue contended that the appeal did not meet the threshold set by the proviso, thereby rendering it non-maintainable. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the records, agreed with the Ld. Authorised Representative's argument and decided to dismiss the appeal based on the provisions outlined in the second proviso. By doing so, the Tribunal exercised its discretion as provided under the law to refuse admission of an appeal where the specified monetary limits are not met, without delving into the substantive merits of the case. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the underlying issues were left unresolved for future consideration. The order was pronounced in open court, bringing the proceedings to a conclusion.