9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors [2015 (3) TMI 634 -Kerala High Court] and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K Rama Mohanarao Vs. Union of India (2015 (4) TMI 813 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT) and the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. (supra) came to a clear finding that mandatory pre-deposit is required to be made in respect of the appeals filed on or after 06.08.2014. Defect memos requiring the appellants to make pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as amended with effect from 06.08.2014) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld - Decided against assessee. - Diary Numbers- 52254, 52258, 52262, 52272 & 5229 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradip J. Mehta Vs. CIT, Ahmedabad [2008 (4) TMI 6 SC] to argue that when two interpretations are possible the court ordinarily would interpret the provisions in favour of tax-payer and contended that in the wake of judgements of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, it is obvious that two interpretations are possible in this case, (iii) The Supreme Court judgement in the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1953 SCC 211] also supports its case. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, stated that the issue stands settled by a detailed judgement by Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India Others - 2015-TI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Pradip J. Mehta Vs. CIT, Ahmedabad (supra) observed as under:- 27. It is well settled that when two interpretations are possible, then invariably, the Court would adopt the interpretation which is in favour of the tax payer and against the Revenue, Reference may be made to the decision in Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [(2006) 7 SCO 714] of this Court wherein, inter alia, it was observed as under: While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of Strict Interpretation should be applied. The Court shall not interpret the statutory provision In such a manner which would create an additional fiscal burden on a person. It would never be done by invoking the provisions of another Act, which ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
