2016 (12) TMI 569 - AT - Customs

Pre-deposit - Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - interpretation of statute - Held that - On plain reading of the provisions of SECTION 129E, we find that the wordings employed there in are as clear as daylight. In clause (iii) it is unambiguously prescribed that any person aggrieved by a decision or order referred to Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Sec129E of Customs Act, unless deposits 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty, as the case may be, the appeal shall not be entertained - I do not find any reason to read the said provision in any other manner, so as to come to the conclusion that the Appellant is required to deposit 2.5% and not 10% as prescribed under the said provision in view of the settled principle of statutory interpretation. I do not find substance in the argument that the amount paid under clause(i) of Sec.129E, which was paid at the time of filing Appeal before the first Appellate Authority can be adjusted against the amount of deposit required to be made under clause(iii) while filing the Appeal before this forum - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 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 was whether the appellant had complied with the amended provision of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 by depositing the requisite amount of 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty at the time of filing the appeal. The appellant argued that since they had already deposited 7.5% at the first appellate stage, they were only required to deposit the balance 2.5% and not the entire 10% as mentioned in clause (iii) of Section 129E. On a plain reading of the provisions, it was found that the requirement under clause (iii) was unambiguous - any person aggrieved by a decision or order referred to in Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Sec129E must deposit 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty. The tribunal emphasized the principle of literal interpretation in taxing statutes, stating that courts must adhere to the language of the statute without adding words not found in it. The tribunal cited a judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to support the strict construction of taxing statutes. Therefore, the argument that the amount paid under clause (i) could be adjusted against the amount required under clause (iii) was dismissed, and the appeal was not entertained.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the requirement of depositing 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty as prescribed under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlighted the importance of literal interpretation in taxing statutes and the need to strictly construe such provisions without implying or adding words that are not explicitly stated.