9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision of Section 129E of the Customs Act,1962 by depositing the requisite amount of 10% of the duty/ penalty or duty and penalty, as the case may be at the time of filing the said Appeal. It is argued at the Bar that since the Appellants had deposited 7.5% at first appellate stage, before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), hence, the appellants are required to deposit the balance 2.5% and not the entire 10% mentioned in clause (iii) of Sec.129E of the said Act. The Ld. A.R for the Revenue vehemently argued that such an interpretation cannot be read into the said provision without inserting words not present therein. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to reproduce the said provisions brought into effect from 06.08.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014." 3. On plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, I find that the wordings employed there in 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 Sec129E of Customs 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt, there are certain judgments of the Apex Court which also holds that resort to purposive construction would be permissible in certain situation. However, it has been held that the same can be done in the limited type of cases where the Court finds that the language used is so obscure which would give two different meanings, one leading to the workability of the Act and another to absurdity." 4. In view of the above, I do not find substance in the argument that the amount paid under clause(i) of Sec.129E, 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. In the result, the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
