2016 (2) TMI 102 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - appellants were issued a notice for maintainable, as the Registry has noticed a defect that proof of pre-deposit is insufficient - Held that - The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as non-maintainable for lack of compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 35F.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Orders-in-Original due to insufficient proof of pre-deposit under Section 35F.

Analysis:
The appellants, M/s. Maneesh Export, EOU, appealed against Orders-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, citing a defect of insufficient proof of pre-deposit. The appellant argued that post-amendment provisions of Section 35F were not applicable to their case as the orders were issued before the amendment. They contended that the old Section 35F, without mandatory pre-deposit, should apply. The Tribunal noted a previous decision in favor of the appellant but delved into various legal citations provided by the appellant, including High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal analyzed each citation and concluded that the amended provisions of Section 35F applied to all stay applications and appeals filed after the commencement of the Finance Act, 2014. The Tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction was limited compared to High Courts and that the cited judgments did not support the appellant's case. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the retrospective amendment made pre-deposit mandatory. The Tribunal also referenced a judgment regarding income tax cases, emphasizing the differences in amendments and their implications.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following its previous decision and ruling that the appeals were non-maintainable due to the lack of compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F. The miscellaneous applications filed under the old Section 35F were also deemed infructuous and dismissed accordingly. The judgment was pronounced in court on 30/11/15.