9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 421 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Non complaince of pre deposit - Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - Held that - A plain reading of the Section 35 makes it abundantly clear that the Tribunal or Commissioner shall not entertain any appeal under Section 35 unless the appellant has made pre-deposit of applicable amount mentioned in the said provision. Therefore, in terms of the amended Section 35F of CEA,1944 w.e.f. 06th August, 2014, this Tribunal is barred from entertaining any appeal unless pre-deposit as mentioned in Section 35F is complied with. It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that while incorporating a statute or a provision into the existing statute, the Legislatures are fully aware of the position of law as was prevailing on the date of new legislation or bringing the change into the existing legislation. We find the law i.e. amended Sec.35F of CEA,1944 is very clear and unambiguous and the intention of the legislature is also loudly made clear about its applicability. co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in M/s Bhatia Global Trading Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Customs(Preventive),Mumbai(2015 (1) TMI 326 - CESTAT MUMBAI) has dismissed the Appeals filed after 06.08.2014 for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Applicability of amended Section 35F of CEA, 1944 to appeals filed before and after 6th August, 2014. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA dealt with the issue of the applicability of the amended Section 35F of CEA, 1944 to appeals filed before and after 6th August, 2014. The appeals in question were filed against orders passed prior to the amendment to Section 35F. The petitioner argued that the amended Section 35F would not be applicable to appeals filed against such orders, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. The respondent, on the other hand, referred to subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, such as Navin Chandra Chhotelal Vs. Central Board of Excise & Customs and Vijay Prakash D. Mehta Vs. Collector of Customs, emphasizing that the right to appeal is subject to conditions and non-compliance can lead to dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions of both sides and noted that the amended Section 35F of CEA, 1944, which is in line with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, mandates a deposit before entertaining an appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that the legislative intent behind the amendment was clear, and it is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation to follow the law as amended. Referring to a similar case in Mumbai where appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, the Tribunal concluded that under the amended Section 35F, appeals without the necessary deposit are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals in question were dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of the amended Section 35F of CEA, 1944 to appeals filed before and after 6th August, 2014. It emphasized the importance of complying with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and upheld the dismissal of appeals that did not meet this requirement, following the legislative intent and legal precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other tribunals.
|
