2016 (12) TMI 791 - AT - Service Tax

Pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act,1944 - interpretation of statute - Held that - I find that the wordings employed therein are as clear as daylight. In clause (iii) it is unambiguously prescribed that any person aggrieved by a decision or order referred to Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Sec. 35B of 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. I do not find any reason to read the said provision in any other manner, so as to come to the conclusion that the Appellant is required to deposit 2.5% and not 10% as prescribed under the said provision, in view of the settled principle of statutory interpretation. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Greatship (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I 2015 (4) TMI 1006 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT on the principle of interpretation of Taxing statutes held 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the deposit required for filing an appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax. The issue at hand revolved around the interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically focusing on the deposit required for filing an appeal. The appellant had deposited 7.5% at the first appellate stage, arguing that only the balance of 2.5% needed to be paid, not the entire 10% as mentioned in the provision. However, the Revenue contended that such an interpretation was not valid without additional words in the provision. The tribunal examined the relevant provisions of Section 35F, emphasizing the clear language used, which mandated the deposit of 10% of the duty/penalty for appeals falling under clause (iii) of the section.

Upon a careful analysis, the tribunal found no reason to deviate from the literal interpretation of the provision, as per established principles of statutory interpretation. Citing a judgment from the Honorable Bombay High Court, the tribunal reiterated that in taxing statutes, courts must adhere to a literal interpretation without introducing additional words. The court highlighted that taxing statutes are required to be strictly construed, and equitable considerations have no role in such interpretations. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the amount paid under a different clause of Section 35F could not be adjusted against the deposit required for appeals under clause (iii). Consequently, the appeal was not entertained based on the clear language and intent of the statutory provision.

In summary, the judgment delves into the precise interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the literal language of taxing statutes without introducing extraneous considerations. The tribunal's decision underscores the significance of strict construction in tax matters and the necessity to comply with the explicit requirements set forth in the law.