2016 (7) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 33 /2015 For The Assessee : Mr Ashok Mehta, Mr Sameer Jain with Ms Mahi Yadav, Mr Vineet Mehta, Mr Anuroop Singhi, Mr Saurabh Jain, Mr Prakul Khurana, Mr Sanjay Jhanwar For The Respondent : Mr RD Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General with Mrs Manjeet Kaur and Mr Ashish Kumar, Mr Ajay Shukla with Mr Amit Surolia Mr Sarvesh Jain, For The Excise Department : Mr Anil Mehta with Mr Siddhartha Bapna BY THE COURT: By the writ petitions, a challenge has been made to second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The connected appeals challenge the order passed by the Commissioner or the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 2.  After arguing the case to some length, validity ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs on 2.3.2016 in DB Civil Misc Writ Petition No.2432/2016, "Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited versus Union of India & ors", DB Central Excise Appeal No.1/2015, vide order dated 8.4.2015 and "M/s Prosafe International Pvt Ltd versus Union of India & ors", DB Civil Misc Writ Petition No.10740/2014, vide order dated 30.10.2014. 5.  Mr RD Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has supported second proviso to section 35F of the Act of 1944, however, challenge to the amended provision is not pressed by the petitioners/ appellants. 6.  Shri Anil Mehta, Mr Ajay Shukla, Mr Vinay Mehta and Mr Sarvesh Jain, learned counsel for the revenue have supported the orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the year 2014, we find that due to the condition of predeposit and discretion given to the Commissioner/ CESTAT to grant exemption, the hearing of the appeals has been delayed. To overcome with that difficulty, amendment was brought through the Finance Act, 2014. The condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the amount of duty without any provision for exemption has been provided. It is to avoid any litigation on the issue of pre-deposit so that hearing of the appeals can be expedited. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and the orders passed by this court in the cases referred above, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the Commissioner/ CESTAT need interference. Thus, taking into consideration the facts available on record, we a....