[2015-TIOL-1093-CESTAT-MUM] Maneesh Export(eou), Satish J. Khalap, Vinay R. Sapte vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur

Facts:
The
Appellants did not deposit 7.5% of the duty confirmed as per amended
section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1994 with effect from 06/08/2014.
The question before the Tribunal was relating to maintainability of the
appeals.

Held:
The Hon’ble Tribunal while dismissing
the case of the Appellants noted the decision of Hossein Kasam Dada
(India) Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1983 (13) ELT 1277 (SC) and
observed that the pre-existing right of appeal is not destroyed by the
amendment if the amendment is not made retrospective by express words or
necessary intendment. The said decision was distinguished to state that
the second proviso of section 35F of the Central Excise Act,1944 makes
it very clear that the amended provisions would not apply to the stay
applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to
the commencement of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 which in turn would
imply that in respect of the stay applications and appeals filed before
any appellate authority after the commencement of the Finance (No. 2)
Act, 2014 the new provisions will apply irrespective of the date when
the order-in-original/order-in-appeal or the show Cause Notice was
issued or the period of dispute thus making the amendment retrospective
to which the principles laid down by Hossein Kasam Dada(supra) do not
apply as it dealt with an amendment that is prospective in nature.
Further the decision in the case of K. Rama Mohana Rao
[2015-TIOL-511-HC-AP-CX] was also disregarded by stating that the order
was an interim order and no final judgement has been taken by the
Hon’ble High Court and further the decision of the Kerala High Court in
the case of A.M. Motors [2015-TIOL-1069-HC-Kerala-ST] was also
disregarded. A similar decision as reported was also expressed in the
case of Shri Nand Kishore Sharma vs. CC [2015-TIOL-1190-CESTAT-MUM]