M/S Diamond Entertainment Technologies PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, mandating a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded, applies to all appeals filed on or after August 6, 2014, irrespective of the date of the show cause notice. The Court reasoned that the wording of the amended section is unambiguous, stating that the Tribunal shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant deposits the stipulated percentage. The Court noted that the judgment in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which held this position, had merged with the Supreme Court's order dismissing the appeal against it. Therefore, the Delhi High Court was bound by the law laid down in Anjani Technoplast. The Court found no substance in the petitioner's prayer to waive the mandatory pre-deposit, as it would amount to acting in violation of the law. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the CESTAT to entertain its appeal against an order dated 23rd February, 2018, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, without requiring a pre-deposit of 10% of the duty demanded, which amounted to Rs. 56,40,646/-. The petitioner argued that 7.5% of the duty demanded should be waived. The appeal was filed before the CESTAT after the amendment of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates pre-deposit for entertaining appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, requiring a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded, applies to appeals filed after the amendment's effective date, even if the show cause notice was issued prior to it? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the pre-deposit amount should be waived, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Hossein Kasam Dada (India) Limited v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. They sought to argue that the amendment should not apply to cases where the show cause notice was issued before its effective date. Revenue's contention: The respondents contended that the law, as amended, mandates pre-deposit and that the Court cannot be more lenient than the law itself. They relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which held that the amended Section 35F applies to all appeals filed on or after the amendment's effective date.