TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the appellant submitted that the appellant may be allowed to file the appeal without insistence by the registry to deposit mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submitted that the appellant has vested right of appeal which cannot be defeated by putting fetters of mandatory pre-deposit. He also submitted that this Tribunal has the power to condone the mandatory condition of pre-deposit to entertain the appeal. In support of his submission, the Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ANR. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987 AIR 1987 SCR (2) 387. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bay and Hon'ble High Court of Madras as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Here, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant paras of the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble High Courts. 5. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of G.D. Goenka World Institute cited (supra) has held in Para 19 which is as under:- "19. To our minds, there would be no escape from pre-deposit as the Tribunal lacks the power to entertain the appeal without it. If we have to lend any other interpretation, it would defeat the legislative intent which is so clearly visible from the provisions of Section 35F of the Act and in fact, there would have been no necessity of amendment and Section 129E in its unamended form need not have been tinkered with. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely referred to. The independent reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras is, with respect, rightly construing and interpreting the statutory provision. As held by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, the substantive provision Section 35F after its amendment, is not capable of any other interpretation. Though the second proviso was referred, but the Division Bench independent thereof, agreed with the contention of the Revenue which is that the amended provision would have to be applied to all such appeals as falling within the second proviso. 23. We also arrive at the same conclusion and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to reproduce each and every paragraph from the judgment of the High Court of Madras.....