TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers-in-Original No. Belapur/34/Bel-I/R-IV/COMMR/SFA/2014-15 dated 28/01/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur. The appellants were issued a notice for maintainable, as the Registry has noticed a defect that proof of pre-deposit is insufficient . 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there was no necessity of mandatory pre-deposit in their case. Crux of their argument was that the amended provisions of Section 35F have come into effect on 06.08.2014. While in these cases, the orders-in-original have been issued after the said amendment. The show-cause notices were issued on 07/02/2014 28/09/2012 respectively. In this regard their argument was that old Section 35F would be applicable and there is no requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order in a writ petition and has followed the said interim order of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and here again the issue has not been decided. Similar is the position in the case Super Threading (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hossein Kasam Dada (supra) is concerned, we have already discussed in the earlier paragraph and in our view, the said judgment does not help the case of the appellants. On the contrary, it helps the Revenue to argue that the language of the second proviso to new Section 35F makes it very clear that the amended provisions will apply to all the stay applications and appeals filed after the commencement of the Finance (no.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We have gone through the said judgment. The facts of the case are entirely different. It was relating to the interest provisions under Section 11DD and is in respect of a period when there was no provision for interest. The facts in the present case are entirely different and we do not find application of the said case law. 6.1 We have also gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The learned AR has quoted para 9 to 13 of the said judgment to buttress the argument that since the new section has substituted old section, the amended section will have an effect as if the amended section has all along been there. We have also discussed in the earlier p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
