TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmunication [2016 (8) TMI 451 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is based on consideration of several binding precedents. As far as this Bench is concerned, being a coordinate bench, we are respectfully bound by the said view. The appellant has neither demonstrated that the said decision is per curiam nor has satisfied this Court that the decision requires reconsideration by a larger bench. We concur with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Nimbus Communication - no substantial question of law arises. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 34, 32 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2017 - A. S. Oka And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. R. V. Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. K. R. Chaudhari Mr. R. V. Shetty for Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n away. He invited our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nimbus Communication Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax VI and Another Central Excise Appeal No. 161 of 2016 decided on 25th July, 2016 which holds that the amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is valid. The same decision holds that Section 35F as amended would apply to all appeals preferred after 6th August, 2014 even if the lis in respect of the same had commenced prior to the said date. His submission is that the said decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nimbus Communication (supra) is not a binding precedent. 7. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carefully considered the submissions. In the case of Nimbus communication (supra), the Division bench decided three questions of law which were formulated in paragraph 2 of the said decision which read thus : (1) The right of appeal being a vested right, whether the provisions of law as applicable at the commencement of the lis would apply or the amended provisions as on the date of filing of appeal would apply ? (2) Whether the second proviso to the amended section 35F can be interpreted as provided expressly or by necessary intendment that amended section 35F would apply to all appeals filed after 6.8.2014, even if the lis in respect of the same has arisen prior to 6.8.2014 ? (3) Whether the amended section 35F of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a claim for compensation arising under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The said Act was repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The argument was that for challenging an award made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 after repeal of the Act of 1939, while preferring an appeal, the compliance with the provisions of 1988 Act is required to be made. The Apex Court negatived the said contention. In the case of Vaibhav Steel Corporation (supra), the Division Bench of this Court did not deal with the issue which has arisen for consideration in this appeal. 16. In the case of K. Raveendranathan Nair (supra), the Apex Court dealt with the case where issue was of substantial enhancement in Court fees payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
