TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount as specified therein in respect of appeal filed after amendment. In our considered view, the applicant is required to furnish the evidence of the mandatory deposit as required under amended section 35F of the Act. - merit in the application filed by the applicant. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the applicant to furnish proof of mandatory as required under Section 35F as amended by the Act, within two weeks from today to the Registry of this Tribunal. Otherwise, the Registry is directed to return the appeal as the Tribunal has no power to entertain the appeal. - in view of the amendment of the Section 35F of the Act, the Stay application is not maintainable. - Decided against assessee. - Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the High Courts as under : a) M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd vs Union of India - 2015(320)ELT.51(Ker.) b) M/s K Rama Mohanarao Co vs Union of India and Others 2015.TI)L.511.HC.AP.CX. 3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Ganesh Yadav vs. Union of India and others 2015.TIOL.1490.HC.All.ST on identical issue dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. He particularly drew the attention of the Bench Para 18, 19 and 20 of the order. 4. We find that Section 35F of the Central Excise Act was amended on 6.8.2014. The relevant portion of the Section 35F as amended is reproduced below: SECTION 35F. Deposit of certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) Act. 2014. 5. On plain reading of the above provisions, it is clear that no appeal shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless the appellant has deposited the amount as specified therein, in pursuance of the decision or order appeal against. It is seen that second proviso under section 35F makes it clear that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the Stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate Tribunal prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014. Thus, the stay applications and appeals pending before the Tribunal prior to amendment of this section, the mandatory deposit is not required. In the present case, the appeal and stay application were not pending before the Tribunal prior to the ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the demand of Service Tax and penalty was confirmed after 6.8.2014 by the impugned order. In the case of M/s K Rama Mohanarao Co (supra) the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the amended section 35F of the Act and the Hon ble High Court granted interim relief, which would not be applicable in all cases. So, none of the case laws would apply in the present case. 9. We find that the decision relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representative in the case of M/s Ganesh Yadav (supra) would be applicable in the present case. It is noticed that the Hon ble Court also considered the decision relied upon by the Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by the second proviso to the provision, it is clear that appeals which are filed on and after the enforcement of the amended provision on 6 August 2014 shall be governed by the requirement of pre-deposit as stipulated therein. The only category to which the provision will not apply that would be those where the appeals or, as the case may be, stay applications were pending before the appellate authority prior to the commencement of Finance (No.2) Act 2014. 20. Our attention has been dawn to a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Muthoot Finance Ltd. vs Union of India 2015-TIOL-632-HC-KERALA-ST. The Kerala High Court has referred to an interim order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K Rama Mohanar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
