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>Court Upholds Pre-Deposit Rule, Modifies Orders for Central Excise Appeals</h1> <h3>M/s Barijoriwala's Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd, M/s. Paramount Security and Other Versus The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur -I, Jaipur and Other</h3> M/s Barijoriwala's Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd, M/s. Paramount Security and Other Versus The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur -I, Jaipur and Other ... 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:1. The writ petitions challenged the second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while the connected appeals contested the orders issued by the Commissioner or CESTAT. The petitioners did not press the challenge to the second proviso due to an alternative prayer to make the pre-deposit condition reasonable. The Finance Act, 2014 limited the pre-deposit to 7.5% of the demand to maintain an appeal.2. The court considered the alternative prayer and noted that the pre-deposit condition existed before the amendment, allowing exemptions upon application by the assessee. However, the Commissioner/CESTAT directed deposit amounts higher than the Finance Act, 2014 provision, leading to delays in appeals' hearings.3. The assessee's counsel sought directions similar to previous cases where interim orders required a 7.5% pre-deposit for appeal hearings. The Union of India supported the second proviso to section 35-F, while the revenue's counsel upheld the Commissioner/CESTAT's orders granting reasonable exemptions.4. The court did not accept the challenge to the second proviso but focused on the orders granting exemptions from pre-deposit. Considering the legislative intent behind the 2014 amendment to expedite appeal hearings, the court decided that a 15% pre-deposit of duty or penalty would suffice for appeal hearings, modifying the impugned orders accordingly.5. Non-compliance with pre-deposit orders led to the dismissal of some appeals, which could be restored upon depositing the 15% amount within a month. Appeals where the amount was already deposited in excess would proceed without additional pre-deposit requirements. The judgment was to be placed in all relevant files for reference.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
