9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has not complied with the amended provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act,1944, by depositing the requisite amount of 10% of the duty/ penalty or duty and penalty, as the case may be at the time of filing the said Appeals. It is argued at the Bar that since the Appellant had deposited 7.5% at first appellate stage, before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), hence, the appellant is required to deposit the balance 2.5% and not the entire 10% mentioned in clause (iii) of Sec.35F of the said Act. The Ld. A.R for the Revenue vehemently argued that such an interpretation cannot be read into the said provision without inserting words not present therein. Before considering the rival submissions it is necessary to reprodu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section shall 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 provisions, I find that the wordings employed therein 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 Sec. 35B of Central Excise 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% an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, I do not find substance in the argument that the amount paid under Clause (i) of Sec. 35F which was paid at the time of filing Appeal before the first Appellate Authority can be adjusted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
