2015 (10) TMI 2076 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds appeal dismissal due to duty amount below threshold. Discretion key in applying law.

M/s MK Trading Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

The Tribunal dismissed the application for Rectification of Mistake, upholding the original decision to refuse admission of the appeal based on the duty ... Rectification of mistake - Appeal dismissed as below the monetary limit - Held that:- It is very clear from the provision of Section 35B - that any of the amount i.e. either duty, or penalty or fine involved in a particular case is less than ₹ 50,000/- can be disposed of as per the discretion provided under proviso to Section 35B(1). - there is no stage prescribed under the law for exercising the discretion by the Tribunal for disposing of the appeal in terms of proviso to Section 35B(1) - though the amount is less than threshold limit provided in the law but appeal was entertained on merit. However these judgments do not become precedence, the discretionary power provided in proviso under Section 35B(1) can be exercised by the bench depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any apparent mistake in the order - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Interpretation of proviso to Section 35 B (1) regarding the threshold limit for admitting appeals.2. Consideration of total amount (duty, penalty, and fine) for determining the threshold limit.3. Impact of granting stay on the discretion of the Tribunal to decide the appeal based on the monetary limit.4. Application of judgments in similar cases to the present scenario.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to Section 35 B (1) concerning the discretion of the Tribunal to refuse admission of appeals where the duty or penalty or fine involved does not exceed Rs. 50,000. The appellant argued that the appeal should not have been dismissed solely based on the duty amount being Rs. 25,544, as when penalty is considered, the total exceeds the threshold. However, the Tribunal held that the proviso allows discretion based on individual amounts, and since the duty amount alone was below Rs. 50,000, the appeal dismissal was justified.2. The Tribunal clarified that the proviso to Section 35 B (1) does not require the total amount (duty, penalty, and fine) to exceed Rs. 50,000 for the appeal to be admitted. It emphasized that any of the amounts individually falling below the threshold allows the Tribunal to exercise discretion. Therefore, in this case, where the duty amount was below Rs. 50,000, the Tribunal was within its rights to refuse admission of the appeal.3. The impact of granting a stay on the Tribunal's discretion to decide the appeal based on the monetary limit was also discussed. The respondent argued that the Tribunal could exercise discretion at any point before the final disposal of the appeal, irrespective of a stay order being in place. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the discretion under Section 35 B (1) proviso could be applied regardless of the interim relief granted during the appeal process.4. The appellant cited various judgments to support their argument that appeals should be decided on merit once admitted, even if the amount involved is below the threshold limit. However, the Tribunal noted that while past judgments may have allowed appeals below the limit to proceed on merit, the discretionary power under Section 35 B (1) proviso is to be applied based on the specific circumstances of each case. The Tribunal emphasized that the cited judgments do not set a binding precedent and that the discretion provided by the law should be exercised accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for Rectification of Mistake, upholding the original order's decision to refuse admission of the appeal based on the duty amount falling below the prescribed threshold limit, as per the proviso to Section 35 B (1).