2013 (2) TMI 364 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty reduces - revenue appeal against reduction - Held that - Second proviso to Section 35B (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 empowers the Tribunal not to entertain any appeal if it is less than Rs. 50,000/-. Thus Revenue s appeal needs to be dismissed as in the extreme case, penalty that can be imposed is Rs. 34,791/- which was imposed by the adjudicating authority - dismiss the revenue appeal without going into merits of the case.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against reduction of penalty imposed by adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindaran, dealt with an appeal where the appellant was represented by Shri Manoj Kutty, A.R. The key issue was the reduction of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, which was subsequently reduced from Rs. 34,791 to Rs. 1,000 by the first appellate authority. The Revenue contended that the penalty should be enhanced back to the original amount of Rs. 34,791. However, the Tribunal, after considering the provisions of the Central Excise Act, specifically the second proviso to Section 35B(1), noted that it empowers the Tribunal not to entertain any appeal if the amount in question is less than Rs. 50,000. In this case, since the penalty amount was Rs. 34,791, falling below the threshold specified in the proviso, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal without delving into the merits of the case. This decision was based on the statutory limitation provided under the Act, which restricted the Tribunal from entertaining appeals involving amounts below the specified threshold.

The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions and limitations in determining the Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain appeals based on the monetary value involved. Despite the Revenue's contention for an enhanced penalty amount, the Tribunal's decision was guided by the specific provision under the Central Excise Act, which prevented the Tribunal from considering appeals below the prescribed threshold. This case serves as a reminder of the legal constraints within which such appeals are adjudicated, emphasizing the significance of statutory provisions in determining the Tribunal's jurisdiction and scope of authority in matters concerning penalties imposed under the Act.