2016 (10) TMI 946 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - 7.5% was deposited before filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Now whether appellant is required to deposit entire 10% amount in addition to deposit made earlier or only 2.5% after adjustment of the amount paid earlier, for filing an appeal before the tribunal - Compliance of amended provision of Section 129E/35F of the Customs Act,1962/ Central Excise Act,1944 - interpretation of statute - Held that - on reading of provisions it is found that the wordings employed there in is as clear as daylight. In clasue (iii) it is unambiguously prescribed that any person aggrieved by a decision or order referred to Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Sec 129A/35B of Customs Act/Central Excise Act, unless deposits 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty, as the case may be, the appeal shall not be entertained. We do not find any reason to read the said provision in any other manner so as to come to the conclusion that the Appellants are required to deposit 2.5% and not 10% as prescribed under the said provision in view of the settled principle of statutory interpretation - reliance placed on the decision of Greatship(India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I 2015 (4) TMI 1006 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that it is settled position of law that in taxing statute, the Courts have to adhere to literal interpretation. At first instance, the Court is required to examine the language of the statute and make an attempt to derive its natural meaning. The Court interpreting the statute should not proceed to add the words which are not found in the statute. It is equally settled that a taxing statute is required to be strictly construed. Common sense approach, equity, logic, ethics and morality have no role to play while interpreting the taxing statute. It is equally settled that nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied and one is required to look fairly at the language used and nothing more and nothing less. We do not find substance in the argument that the amount paid under clause(i) of Sec.129E/35F which was paid at the time of filing Appeal before the first Appellate Authority can be adjusted against the amount of deposit required to be made under clause(iii) while filing the Appeal before this forum - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 129E/35F of the Customs Act, 1962/Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding deposit requirements for filing appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with three appeals against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) where the appellants failed to comply with the amended provision of Section 129E/35F by not depositing the requisite amount of 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty. The issue revolved around whether the appellants, who had initially deposited 7.5% at the first appellate stage, were required to deposit the remaining 2.5% or the entire 10% as per clause (iii) of Sec.129E/35F. The Tribunal examined the clear language of the provisions and rejected the argument that a partial deposit sufficed, emphasizing the need for strict interpretation of taxing statutes. Citing the settled principle of statutory interpretation, the Tribunal held that the appellants must comply with the 10% deposit requirement under clause (iii) to entertain the appeals.

The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's observation on the interpretation of taxing statutes, highlighting the necessity of adhering to the literal meaning of the law without adding words not present in the statute. The judgment emphasized that in taxing statutes, equitable considerations or subjective interpretations have no role, and strict adherence to the language used is paramount. The Tribunal underscored that the taxing statute must be strictly construed, and any ambiguity should be resolved by looking at the words used without implying additional conditions. While acknowledging the permissibility of purposive construction in limited cases of obscure language, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants must fulfill the 10% deposit requirement under clause (iii) of Sec.129E/35F, and the amount paid under clause (i) at the first appellate stage cannot be adjusted against this deposit.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the appellants failed to comply with the 10% deposit requirement specified under clause (iii) of Sec.129E/35F. The judgment reiterated the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions in tax matters and the necessity of fulfilling prescribed requirements for the appeal to be entertained, emphasizing the literal interpretation of the law without room for equitable considerations.