Mandatory pre-deposit under amended excise law applies by appeal filing date, and writ jurisdiction cannot bypass it.

For appeals under the amended pre-deposit regime in the Central Excise Act, the decisive date is the date of filing of the appeal, not the date of the show cause notice or the dispute period. Because the substituted Section 35F makes the prescribed deposit a condition precedent to entertainment of the appeal, appeals filed after 6 August 2014 were subject to the amended requirement, and the earlier saving clause protected only appeals already pending. The High Court also held that writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass this statutory bar or direct the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without compliance, though time to make the deposit was extended.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the substituted Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to an appeal filed after 6 August 2014 even though the dispute period and show cause notice were earlier; (ii) whether the High Court could permit prosecution of the appeal before the CESTAT without compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the substituted Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to an appeal filed after 6 August 2014 even though the dispute period and show cause notice were earlier

Analysis: The substituted provision makes deposit of the prescribed percentage a condition precedent for entertainment of the appeal, and its second proviso saves only appeals and stay applications pending before the appellate authority before the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014. The controlling date is the date of filing of the appeal, not the date of the show cause notice or the period of dispute. The earlier decision holding the same was treated as binding, and the contrary line of decisions was not followed.

Conclusion: The amended Section 35F applied to the petitioners' appeals filed after 6 August 2014, and the mandatory pre-deposit could not be avoided on the ground that the dispute or notice was earlier.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could permit prosecution of the appeal before the CESTAT without compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement

Analysis: The statutory command is peremptory and the appellate authority cannot entertain the appeal without the prescribed deposit. The High Court held that no court can direct an authority to act contrary to law, and Article 226 cannot be used to neutralize an express statutory bar. Financial hardship did not justify bypassing the binding pre-deposit regime in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The High Court could not grant permission to pursue the appeal without compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on merits, but time to make the pre-deposit was extended so that the statutory appeal could be restored if the amount was deposited within the stipulated period.

Ratio Decidendi: For appeals under the amended pre-deposit regime, the decisive factor is the date of filing of the appeal, and once the statute makes deposit a condition for entertainment of the appeal, neither earlier issuance of notice nor writ jurisdiction can override that mandatory requirement.

---