9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground that appellant/assessee has not complied with the amended provision of Section 35F as applicable to Service tax matters by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the statutory requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, relied upon two decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of AI Champdani Industries Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited VS. CCE [2015 (2) TMI 421 - CESTAT KOLKATA]. The contention of the appellant/assessee is that the appellant's right to file an appeal continues to be governed by the appellate provisions of the Central Excise Act and as they existed on the date of the issuance of the show cause notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant: Mr. D.Banerjee, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Abhradip Maity, Adv. The Court:- In the cause title the respondent has been shown as Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Siliguri. At present since the CGST Act has come into force the respondent shall be the Commissioner of CGST and CX Siliguri Commissionerate. The cause title shall be accordingly amended. 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax matters by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. In this appeal the assessee challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on 15.11.2014 challenging the order-in-original dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Siliguri Commissionerate was dismissed on the ground that appellant/assessee has not complied with the amended provision of Section 35F as applicable to Service tax matters by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the statutory requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, relied upon two decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of AI Champdani Industries Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited VS. CCE dated 5.1.2015. The contention of the appellant/assessee is that the appellant's right to file a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t date. Then, in that event, second proviso would become otiose and redundant. No provision of an enactment can be interpreted so as to make any part of it redundant or useless. The real intention of the Parliament is, to insert the second proviso as a saving clause, thereby applying the provision prior to amendment, only in respect of those appeals pending before the appellate authority as on 6/8/2014. In all other cases, the main amended provision would apply. The reason for such a proviso was necessitated so as to obviate a situation whereby, applications pending before the appellate authority or tribunal would become infructuous on account of the amendment made to Section 35F as the amendment has a retrospective effect. Parliament was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ean that in all cases not covered under the second proviso, the main amended Section 35F would apply, irrespective as to when the lis has commenced. Thus, the date on which the lis has commenced in each case has no bearing on the amendment as it has a retrospective effect. Even if the lis had commenced prior to the date of amendment and an appeal had not been filed on that date, even in such a situation, the main amended Section 35F would apply and a pre-deposit as per amended provision would have to be made. In the light of the above decision, all cases not covered under the second proviso, the main amendment and main amended Section 35F would apply irrespective of as to when the lis has commenced. The date on which the lis has commenced i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 35 and 35B of the Act is in no way affected by the amendment made to Section 35F of the Act requiring pre-deposit to be made at the time of preferring the appeal. Such a condition regarding pre-deposit is made with a view to regulate the exercise of the right of appeal so as to enforce the order appealed against in case the appeal is ultimately dismissed. (3) Section 35F of the Act has retrospective operation and is not restricted to only prospective cases. It applies to all lis which have commenced prior to or after the enforcement of the amendment, except to cases covered under the second provisothereof. (4) That in view of the insertion of second proviso to amended Section 35F of the Act, it is held that the same is in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
