2026 (3) TMI 1162 - AT - Customs

Tribunal discretion to refuse appeals where penalty falls below statutory threshold, leading to non admission and dismissal.

The note addresses admissibility and maintainability of appeals under the statutory proviso allowing the Appellate Tribunal discretion to refuse admission ... Maintainability of appeal, where the amount of penalty involved in each appeal is less than Rs. two lakhs under the second proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - discretion to refuse admission - monetary threshold for admission - presumption of service under general clauses act - limitation and delay in filing appeals. - Penalty on Customs Broker Appeal filed by the appellant were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeal) on the round of limitation as these have been file beyond the period which could have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeal). Appellate Tribunal's discretion to refuse appeals where penalty involved is less than Rs.2 lakhs - HELD THAT:- Appellant has in the appeal memo, at SI No 14 appellant has declared the penalty amount to be “Rs.25,000/- under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in the second appeal, penalty amount to be “Rs.75,000/- under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962”. The Tribunal applied the second proviso to Section 129A(1) and held that it has discretion to refuse admission of appeals in cases where the amount of fine or penalty determined by the order does not exceed Rs.2 lakhs. Presumption of service under general clauses act - limitation and delay in filing appeals. - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the order in originals had been sent to the appellant in normal course of business to their address by the speed post. The details of the speed post have been provided in the table. These orders sent to the appellant were not returned back by the Department of Posts undelivered. In terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the orders have been delivered to the appellant within a reasonable time (about a week) from their date of dispatch to the appellant. The presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is a presumption in law and need to be rebutted by the aggrieved party by providing necessary evidences. No such thing available on record. Thus do not agree to the submissions made by the appellant in this regard. Also the decisions relied upon by the appellant are clearly distinguishable. Tribunal do not find the appeal maintainable as having very low amount involved - not intend to discuss this aspect in much more detail. However while making the above order, It is clear that neither Commissioner (Appeal) has in her order nor Tribunal have in this order examined the issue with regards to merits of penalty imposed upon the appellant. This order or the order in appeal should in no way be considered to be approving the penalty imposed upon the appellant. Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal exercised its discretion under the proviso to Section 129A(1) to refuse admission of the appeals because the penalties determined by the impugned orders in each appeal were below the Rs.2 lakh threshold; consequently the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal should admit and entertain appeals against orders imposing penalty where the amount of penalty involved in each appeal is less than Rs. two lakhs under the second proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the appeals are maintainable.Analysis: The Tribunal considered the second proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 which vests discretion in the Appellate Tribunal to refuse admission of appeals where, inter alia, the amount of fine or penalty determined by the order does not exceed two lakh rupees. The material shows penalties of Rs.25,000 and Rs.75,000 were imposed in the respective original orders. The Tribunal also examined the dispatch and delivery presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and found certified copies of the orders were dispatched to the appellant by speed post and not returned undelivered; the presumption of delivery was not rebutted. The Tribunal noted that neither the Commissioner (Appeal) nor the Tribunal had examined the merits of the penalties and limited its determination to admissibility and maintainability under the statutory proviso.Conclusion: The Tribunal exercised its discretion under the second proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and declined to admit the appeals because the penalty involved in each appeal is less than Rs. two lakhs; the appeals are not maintainable and are dismissed.Ratio Decidendi: Where the penalty or fine determined by the order does not exceed Rs. two lakhs, the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse to admit an appeal under the second proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962; absence of rebuttal to the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act supports maintenance of dispatch and delivery for limitation and admissibility purposes.