2017 (12) TMI 76 - AT - Central Excise

Monetary amount involved in the appeal - the duty amount involved in the case is ₹ 32,592/- and interest thereon - maintainability of appeal - Held that - In view of Second proviso to Section 35B (1), this Tribunal has discretion to refuse 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, we refuse to admit this appeal - appeal dismissed on monetary ground.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under Second proviso to Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dealt with the discretion of the Tribunal to refuse admission of an appeal under the Second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal highlighted that it has the authority to refuse admission to an appeal where the amount of duty, fine, or penalty determined by the order does not exceed a specified limit, which was &8377; 50,000 before 6/8/2014 and &8377; 2 Lakhs on or after 6/8/2014. In this case, the duty amount involved was &8377; 32,592 along with interest. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A, falling under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B. Therefore, the Tribunal exercised its discretion and refused to admit the appeal due to the amount being below the threshold limit, without delving into the merits of the case. The appeal was dismissed solely based on the grounds of the amount being below the specified threshold limit, as per the provisions of the Second proviso to Section 35B.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and limitations set forth in the Central Excise Act, 1944. It elucidates the Tribunal's discretionary power to refuse admission to appeals where the amount involved falls below the prescribed threshold, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the legal requirements. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal solely based on the monetary limit specified in the Second proviso to Section 35B showcases the significance of procedural adherence and statutory interpretation in legal proceedings. The judgment serves as a reminder of the regulatory framework within which such appeals are considered and the Tribunal's authority to exercise discretion in admitting or refusing appeals based on the stipulated criteria.