2016 (12) TMI 1510 - AT - Central Excise

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. 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:
1. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) BHAVNAGAR. The appellant did not appear, and the argument revolved around the interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The provision mandates the deposit of a certain percentage of duty or penalty before filing an appeal. The appellant had deposited 7.5% at the first appellate stage and argued that only the balance 2.5% should be deposited, contrary to the 10% mentioned in clause (iii) of Section 35F. The Revenue contended that the provision should be strictly followed without any alterations.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the language of Section 35F and found it clear and unambiguous. It stated that as per clause (iii), any person aggrieved by a decision or order under Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Sec. 35B must deposit 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of literal interpretation in taxing statutes, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The judgment highlighted that in taxing statutes, the Courts must adhere to the literal interpretation without adding words not present in the statute. It further emphasized that equitable construction is not admissible in taxing statutes, and they must be strictly construed.

3. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the amount paid at the first appellate stage could be adjusted against the deposit required under clause (iii) while filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was not entertained, as the appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirement specified under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the literal interpretation of taxing statutes without implying or adding additional conditions beyond what is explicitly stated in the law.