TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal Bench (for short "Appellate Tribunal"). 3. By the impugned order dated 2nd June, 2015 the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of non compliance of the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the said Act"). The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the amount equivalent to 7.5% of the duty or penalty as per Section 35F of the said Act was not deposited by the appellant. 4. In Central Excise Appeal No. 34 of 2016, the challenge is to the same order dated 2nd June, 2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal by which another appeal preferred by the appellant in the said Appeal has been dismissed on the same ground. 5. In both the cases, the appeal were filed after 1st October, 2014 when ame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could not be taken away by a retrospective amendment. 8. He also relied upon another decision of the Apex court in the case of Ramesh Singh & Anr vs. Cinta Devi & Others. 1996 SCC (3) 14 He placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex court in case of K. Raveendranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Civil Appeal No. 3131 of 2006 dated 10th August, 2017. He also relied upon decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Vaibhav Steel Corporation vs. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (VAT) and Others Writ Petition No. 1735 of 2013 decided on 26th November, 2013. 9. He submitted that in the present case, the appellant is not in a position to make a deposit of 7.5% amount as provided under Section 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... urged that the right of appeal is vested on the date on which a lis originates. The Division bench in paragraph 17 observed that such view is consistently taken by the Apex Court in the Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. 13. After considering the various decisions of the Apex Court, the Division Bench upheld the validity of Section 35F and held that Section 35F as amended does not defeat or render the vested right of appeal illusory. Paragraph 15 of the judgment shows that the decision in the case of Garikapatti Veeraya (supra) and Hoosein Kasam Dada (supra) were considered. 14. Now we turn to the decision in the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (supra). In paragraph 4 of the decision, the Apex Court observed that by....