2016 (10) TMI 755 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - duty amount involved in the case is ₹ 16,756 /- and interest thereon - Tribunal has discretion either to refuse or to admit the appeal under Second proviso to Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - 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 or 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). As the amount involved is below threshold limit of ₹ 50,000/-, the appeal is dismissed.

Issues:
Admission of appeal under Second proviso to Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 based on the duty amount involved.

Analysis:
The judgment 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 admit or refuse an appeal based on certain criteria. The section outlines the orders against which an appeal can be made, including decisions by the Commissioner of Central Excise, orders by the Commissioner (Appeals), and orders by the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the Appellate Commissioner of Central Excise. The Second proviso under Section 35B allows the Tribunal to refuse or admit an appeal in specific cases where the duty amount, fine, or penalty determined by the order does not exceed a certain limit. In this case, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A, falling under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B.

The Tribunal has the discretion to refuse or admit the appeal when the duty amount, fine, or penalty determined by the order is below the specified threshold. Before 6/8/2014, the limit was set at Rs. 50,000, and post this date, it was increased to Rs. 2 lakhs. In the present case, the duty amount involved was Rs. 16,756, which is below the threshold limit specified in the Second proviso to Section 35B. Therefore, the Tribunal exercised its discretion and refused to admit the appeal solely based on the grounds that the amount did not meet the threshold requirement. The judgment explicitly states that the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the case, highlighting the significance of the prescribed threshold limit in determining the admissibility of appeals before the Tribunal.

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of the prescribed threshold limits in determining the admissibility of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The discretion provided to the Tribunal under the Second proviso to Section 35B plays a crucial role in deciding whether to admit or refuse appeals based on the monetary limits specified in the statute. In this case, the Tribunal refused to admit the appeal due to the duty amount involved being below the threshold limit, emphasizing the statutory requirements that govern the Tribunal's jurisdiction in hearing appeals related to excise matters.

← Previous Next →