ORDER

S. Muralidhar, J. This appeal by Anjani Techoplast Limited, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (`Act'), is directed against the impugned judgment dated 7th July 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (`CESTAT' whereby the appeal in SR. No. 50577/2015 filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant failed to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded in terms of Section 129 E of the Act.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that pursuant to a show-cause notice (`SCN') issued to the Appellant on 10th July 2014 regarding non-fulfilment of its export obligations, an order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) on 10th October 2014 confirming a demand of duty of Rs.5,96,03,154.51 payable by the Appellant under Section 143 (3) read with Section 28 of the Act. By said order the Appellant was held liable to pay interest and penalty of Rs.1,49,00,000 under Section 112 of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the above order, the Appellant filed the aforementioned appeal before the CESTAT which came up for hearing on 7th July 2015. After noticing the fact that Appellant had failed to make the pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded in terms of Section 129E of the Act, and relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India, 2015 (320) ELT 711 (All), the CESTAT dismissed the appeal.

4. Mr. Sushil Tekriwal, learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the amendment to Section 129E of the Act brought into effect from 6th August 2014 would not apply to the case of the Appellant since the SCN was issued prior thereto on 10th June 2014. He urged that the CESTAT erred in dismissing the appeal on account of non-compliance of the amended Section 129E of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Muthoot Finance Limited v. Union of India, 2015 LawSuit (Ker) 238 and the decision dated 12th June 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 12546 of 2015 (Fifth Avenue Sourcing (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax).

5. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned Senior standing counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand referred to the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India, (supra) and submitted that the legal position was clear that the amended Section 129 E of the Act would apply to all appeals filed on and from the date of the enforcement of the amended Section 129E of the Act.

6. At the outset it must be noticed that both Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (`CE Act') as well as Section 129 E of the Act were amended by the Finance Act No.2 of 2014, with effect from 6th August 2014, to provide for mandatory pre-deposit of a fixed percentage of the duty demanded as a pre-condition to the CESTAT entertaining an appeal. For an appeal against the order passed by an officer of the rank of the Commissioner of Customs and below it was 7.5% and for an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) it was 10%. The first proviso to Section 129 E stated that the pre-deposit made thereunder would not exceed Rs.10 crores. The second proviso to Section 129E of the Act clarified that the said provision 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.

7. The amendment to Section 35F of the CE Act was challenged before the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India, (supra). The facts of that case were that an adjudication order was passed on 31st March 2015 confirming the demand of service tax on the Assessee. Penalty was also levied. When the Assessee was called upon to make the mandatory deposit of 7.5% of the duty for his appeal to be entertained, the Assessee preferred a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 35 F of the CE Act as am