Mandatory pre-deposit of fixed percentage of duty & penalty - Amended provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 do not apply for appeals filed and pending as on date of amendment: High Court

Mandatory pre-deposit of fixed percentage of duty & penalty - Amended provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 do not apply for appeals filed and pending as on date of amendment: High Court 

ALLAHABAD : RECENTLY, we carried an order by the Mumbai Tribunal [2015-TIOL-1093-CESTAT-MUM] holding that the amended provisions of pre-deposit would apply to all the appeals filed on or after the amendment, though the dispute pertains to the period prior to the amendment of the provisions. But what about the cases pending before the Tribunal as on the date of amendment?

In this case, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs 25 lakhs against a demand of Rs 2.49 crores. The assessee contested that as per the amended provisions of Section 35F, the amount of pre-deposit is only 7.5% of the duty demand.

The Appellant relied on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the Case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India and Others, Appeal No. 1 of 2015 decided on 12.2.2015 wherein a Division Bench has opined that in view of the
amended Section 35F, the benefit of deposit of 7.5% only must be extended to the appellant in appeal which had been filed prior to the enforcement of the amended Section 35F i.e. 6th August, 2014. Any other direction will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

However, the High Court did not agree with the preposition as laid down in the said judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited.

The High Court held that from a simple reading of Section 35F, which is not under challenge, it cannot be disputed that the provision of Section 35F as amended vide Finance Act 2 of 2014 w.e.f 6th August, 2014 will have no application on the appeals which were filed and were pending before the Tribunal prior to the said date.

It is settled law that if the language of the statute is simple and admits of only one meaning than no rule of interpretation is to be applied and the simple meaning has to be given effect to.

Accordingly, the High Court declined to interfere with the order of pre-deposit by the Tribunal.