Dismissal of Writ Petition Emphasizes Pre-Deposit Rule for CESTAT Appeal

The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal before CESTAT and reaffirming the binding nature of the precedent set by Anjani Technoplast regarding the applicability of the amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner was directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement to proceed with their appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for exemption.
2. Mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal before CESTAT.
3. Applicability of amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Judicial precedents and their applicability to the case.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Exemption:
- The court allowed the exemption application subject to all just exceptions and disposed of the application accordingly.

2. Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirement for Filing an Appeal Before CESTAT:
- The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to entertain their appeal without requiring a pre-deposit of 10% of the duty amounting to Rs. 56,40,646/-.
- The court noted that the statute already waived 92.5% of the duty demanded, and further waiver was not permissible as the law itself is the highest charitable entity.

3. Applicability of Amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
- The court referenced the amendment effective from 6th August 2014, which mandates a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty for appeals.
- The court cited the Division Bench decision in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which clarified that the amended Section 35F applies to all appeals filed on or after 6th August 2014, irrespective of when the show cause notice was issued.
- The court emphasized that the amended Section 35F would apply to all appeals filed on or after the amendment date, and the requirement of pre-deposit is mandatory.

4. Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case:
- The court reviewed several judgments, including Ganesh Yadav v. U.O.I., Fifth Avenue Sourcing (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, and Sri Satya Nand Jha v. Union of India, which supported the applicability of the amended Section 35F.
- The court highlighted that the judgment in Anjani Technoplast had been upheld by the Supreme Court, resulting in a merger of the High Court's judgment with the Supreme Court's order, thus making it binding.
- The court noted that other judgments like Pioneer Corporation v. Union of India, Shubh Impex v. Union of India, and Manoj Kumar Jha v. DRI, which allowed partial pre-deposits, did not consider the binding precedent set by Anjani Technoplast.
- The court concluded that allowing the appeal without the mandatory pre-deposit would violate the statutory requirements and reduce the legislative command to a dead letter.

Conclusion:
- The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner must comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement to prosecute its appeal before the CESTAT.
- The court reaffirmed the binding nature of the precedent set by Anjani Technoplast, which mandates compliance with the amended Section 35F for appeals filed after 6th August 2014.

---