2022 (10) TMI 1074 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and non-maintainability.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, due to the appellant's continuous ... Maintainability of appeal of the assessee - threshold amount involved in the appeal - disputed amount is less than Rs.2,00,000/- - the appellant failed to appeared for hearing despite notice - Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT:- The amount involved in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. In terms of Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal may refuse to admit an appeal filed before it, if the value of the disputed amount is less than Rs.2,00,000/-. On this ground alone, as the amount involved is very petty, this appeal should be held to be non-maintainable and dismissed - the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 as also in terms of Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 being not maintainable as the disputed amount is less than the threshold limit. Issues:- Non-appearance of the appellant during multiple scheduled hearings- Applicability of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982- Threshold limit under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944Analysis:1. Non-appearance of the appellant: The appellant failed to appear for the scheduled hearings on various dates despite prior notices. The Tribunal noted the lack of interest shown by the appellant in pursuing their appeal, as evidenced by their repeated absence. This non-appearance was a crucial factor in the subsequent decision.2. Applicability of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982: Rule 20 empowers the Tribunal to take action when the appellant does not appear for the hearing. The rule allows the Tribunal to either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits. In this case, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's persistent non-appearance, as per the observations made on 07.06.2022.3. Threshold limit under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 35B(1) provides the Tribunal with the authority to refuse to admit an appeal if the disputed amount falls below a specified threshold. In this instance, the amount involved in the appeal was found to be below the threshold limit of Rs. 2,00,000 as prescribed by the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the appeal non-maintainable and decided to dismiss it on this ground.4. Final Decision: Considering the appellant's continuous non-appearance, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in accordance with Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Additionally, the appeal was found to be non-maintainable under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to the disputed amount being below the prescribed threshold limit. As a result, the appeal was dismissed based on these grounds.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the relevant legal provisions applied, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal based on the facts presented before them.