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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Court upholds validity of Central Excise Act provision on pre-deposit orders for appeals</h1> <h3>Puri Brothers, Krystal Stone Export Limited & anr., Autolite (India) Ltd., Vanasthali Textiles Industries Ltd., Rajsukh Gardens, Power Control Corporation, Jeet And Jeet Glass and Chem P Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Limited, Jain Poles Industries & anr. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur-I, Union of India & ors.</h3> Puri Brothers, Krystal Stone Export Limited & anr., Autolite (India) Ltd., Vanasthali Textiles Industries Ltd., Rajsukh Gardens, Power Control ... Issues:Challenge to second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Validity of orders passed by Commissioner/CESTAT on applications for exemption from pre-deposit.Analysis:The judgment dealt with a challenge to the second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the validity of orders passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT on applications for exemption from pre-deposit. Initially, the challenge to the second proviso was not pressed as the court considered an alternative prayer to make the condition of pre-deposit reasonable. The Finance Act, 2014 limited pre-deposit to 7.5% or 10% of the demand to maintain an appeal. The court considered the legislative intent behind the amendment, aiming to expedite appeal hearings by avoiding disputes over pre-deposit. The court decided that appeals would be heard by the Commissioner/CESTAT on depositing 15% of the duty or penalty within one month. The judgment modified the impugned orders to align with this direction.Regarding non-compliance with pre-deposit orders leading to appeal dismissals, the parties agreed that appeals would be restored upon depositing the directed amount. The judgment clarified that if an assessee had already deposited more than directed, the appeal would proceed without further pre-deposit conditions. The judgment emphasized compliance with the directed deposit amount within the specified timeframe for appeal restoration. Each connected file was to have a copy of the judgment for reference and implementation.