2016 (12) TMI 707 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Second proviso to Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - the amount involved in the case is less than ₹ 50,000/- - Held that - the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner 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 exercise of the above discretion we refuse to admit these appeals. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed, without going into merit of the case, on the ground that the amount involved is below the threshold limit of ₹ 50,000/- - appeal not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Orders-in-Appeal No: NK(1895 & 1896)464 & 465/96 dated 11/09/1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai heard appeals filed against Orders-in-Appeal dated 11/09/1996 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The Tribunal noted that the amount involved in the case was less than ?50,000. Under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal has discretion to refuse or admit appeals where the amount in question falls below a certain threshold. The Tribunal referred to the Second proviso to Section 35B, which allows for such discretion based on the amount involved in the case.

Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal observed that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner under Section 35A, falling under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B. As per the Second proviso to Section 35B (1), the Tribunal can refuse to admit appeals where the duty amount or penalty determined by the order is below ?50,000 (before 6/8/2014) or ?2 lakhs (on or after 6/8/2014). In this case, since the amount involved was below the threshold limit, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to refuse to admit the appeals.

Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals without delving into the merits of the case, solely on the basis that the amount in question did not meet the required threshold of ?50,000. This decision was made in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, highlighting the Tribunal's discretionary power in admitting appeals based on the monetary value involved.