Adjusting appellate stage payment for appeal deposit not allowed under Section 35F. Literal interpretation applied. Appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's argument for adjusting the amount paid at the first appellate stage against the deposit required for filing an appeal before the Tribunal was not permissible. Emphasizing the clear and unambiguous language of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal applied the principle of literal interpretation in taxing statutes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirement of 10% specified under Section 35F for entertaining an appeal.

---

---

Issues: Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the deposit required for filing an appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax. The issue at hand revolved around the interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically focusing on the deposit requirement for entertaining an appeal. The appellant argued that since they had already deposited 7.5% at the first appellate stage, they should only be required to deposit the balance 2.5% instead of the entire 10% as mentioned in the provision. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that such an interpretation was not permissible without inserting additional words into the provision. The relevant provision of Section 35F mandates the deposit of a certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal, with different percentages specified based on the nature of the dispute. The Tribunal analyzed the wording of the provision and concluded that it was clear and unambiguous. It was noted that under clause (iii) of Section 35F, a person aggrieved by a decision or order must deposit 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty to have their appeal entertained. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of literal interpretation in taxing statutes and cited a judgment highlighting the importance of adhering strictly to the language of the statute without implying or adding words that are not present.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the amount paid at the first appellate stage could be adjusted against the deposit required for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The decision was based on the clear language of the statute and the principle of strict construction of taxing statutes. Ultimately, the appeal was not entertained due to the appellant's failure to comply with the deposit requirement specified under Section 35F.

---