9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist under the category mention matters by the Registry as the appellant have not complied with the amended provision of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable to service Tax matters by virtue of Sec.83 of Finance Act,1994 by depositing the requisite amount of 7.5% of the Service Tax confirmed at the time of filing the said Appeal. The Ld. A.R for the Revenue pleaded that since the Appellant had not complied with the provision of Sec. 35F of CEA,1994, their Appeal cannot be entertained. Countering the said argument, Ld. Advocate submitted that the impugned Order is contrary to the settled law on the issue, and hence the demand cannot be sustained against the Appellant. Before considering the rival submission, it is necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not apply to the stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014." 3. On plain reading of the aforesaid provision, we find that the wordings employed there in are as clear as daylight. In clause (ii) it is unambiguously prescribed that any person aggrieved by a decision or order referred to Clause (a) of sub- Section (1) of Sec 35B of Central Excise Act, unless deposits seven and half per cent of the duty, where duty and penalty are in dispute , the appeal shall not be entertained. We do not find any reason to read the said provision in any other manner so as to come to the conclusion that the Appellants are not required to deposit 7.5% of the service tax when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied and one is required to look fairly at the language used and nothing more and nothing less. No doubt, there are certain judgments of the Apex Court which also holds that resort to purposive construction would be permissible in certain situation. However, it has been held that the same can be done in the limited type of cases where the Court finds that the language used is so obscure which would give two different meanings, one leading to the workability of the Act and another to absurdity." 4. In view of the above, we do not find substance in the argument that since the confirmed demand cannot survive the scrutiny of law being contrary to the settled principle of law, the Appeal sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
