TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeals under Amended Section 35F</h1> <h3>NETAMBIT INFOSOURCE & E SERVICES PVT. LTD. Versus C.C.,C.E. & S.T., NOIDA</h3> NETAMBIT INFOSOURCE & E SERVICES PVT. LTD. Versus C.C.,C.E. & S.T., NOIDA - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 1177 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Appeal filed without mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 post-amendment - Applicability of pre-deposit requirement to appeals filed after 6-8-2014 - Interpretation of right to appeal pre and post-amendment.Analysis:1. The appellants filed appeals post-amendment without the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F, arguing that as their show cause notices were issued pre-amendment, they were exempt. They contended that the right of appeal accrues on the date of the show cause notice, and the amended Section deprives them of the right to file an appeal with a waiver application. They cited the second proviso to Section 35F to support their stance, claiming discrimination based on filing date.2. The appellants relied on case laws to bolster their arguments. However, the Tribunal analyzed Section 35F pre and post-amendment, emphasizing that CESTAT, being a statutory creation, must adhere to the Act's provisions. The Tribunal cited precedents highlighting CESTAT's limited powers and its obligation to comply with the law. The language of the amended Section was deemed clear, leaving no room for interpretation by CESTAT.3. The Tribunal assessed whether the amendment prejudiced the appellants' right to appeal. It noted that even pre-amendment, the right to appeal required a deposit. The amended Section merely altered the deposit percentage, removing CESTAT's discretion to waive it. The appellants' argument that the amendment curtailed their right was refuted, as the deposit requirement was consistent with pre-amendment conditions. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' contention, ruling that CESTAT cannot entertain appeals without the mandatory pre-deposit post-amendment.4. The judgment clarified that the amended Section 35F did not unduly restrict the right to appeal, as the deposit requirement was not more onerous than before. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment did not violate the appellants' right to appeal, as it aligned with the pre-amendment deposit conditions. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit for appeals filed after 6-8-2014, as per the amended Section 35F.5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants' arguments and affirmed that CESTAT cannot entertain appeals filed without the mandatory pre-deposit post-amendment. The judgment was pronounced on 26-2-2015.
TaxTMI 