2016 (12) TMI 1272 - AT - Service Tax

Pre-deposit - interpretation of statute - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act,1944 - Held that - 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

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 requirement for entertaining an appeal. The appellant argued that since they had already deposited 7.5% at the first appellate stage, they should only be required to deposit the balance 2.5% instead of the entire 10% as mentioned in the provision. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that such an interpretation was not permissible without inserting additional words into the provision. The relevant provision of Section 35F mandates the deposit of a certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal, with different percentages specified based on the nature of the dispute. The Tribunal analyzed the wording of the provision and concluded that it was clear and unambiguous. It was noted that under clause (iii) of Section 35F, a person aggrieved by a decision or order must deposit 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty to have their appeal entertained. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of literal interpretation in taxing statutes and cited a judgment highlighting the importance of adhering strictly to the language of the statute without implying or adding words that are not present.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the amount paid at the first appellate stage could be adjusted against the deposit required for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The decision was based on the clear language of the statute and the principle of strict construction of taxing statutes. Ultimately, the appeal was not entertained due to the appellant's failure to comply with the deposit requirement specified under Section 35F.