The court confirmed that the amendments to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act were constitutionally valid and required compliance for appeals.

JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias.C.P. J.

This writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C)No.456 of 2017 dated 9.1.2023.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-

The petitioner, a firm engaged in the manufacture of different types of plywood, challenged the amendment brought in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act , 1944 (for short 'the Act') as per Section 105 of the Finance (No-2) Act, 2014 as unconstitutional and also Ext.P6 order issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, that dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for want of pre-deposit as required under Section 35F of the .

3. The learned single Judge, who considered the writ petition, found that the challenge to Section 35F of the Act was liable to be rejected as the issue was covered by the judgment inMuthoot Finance Ltd. v. Union of India and others (MANU/KE/0831/2016]. The contention of the appellant that Ext.P3 order is bad as it is hit by the period of limitation provided under Section 11A (11) of the Act, which provided a maximum of six months or one year to complete the adjudication in the notices. The learned single Judge did not consider the limitation question, leaving the issue open. Following the judgment inMuthoot Finance Ltd. (supra), the constitutional validity of Section 35F was upheld. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the amended Act of Section 35F of the Act came into effect on 06.8.2014, it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as Exts.P1 and P2 show cause notices were issued on 03.04.2013 and 31.03.2014 respectively; prior to the amendment, appellant was also repelled on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satya Nand Jha v. Union of India and others [SLP(C) No. 31643 of 2016]. Accordingly, finding that the contentions of the writ petitioner are covered by the judgments referred to above, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the request of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner to grant time to make pre-deposit so as to get the appeal restored was granted, and a period of one month was given for curing the defects. It is the said judgment that is challenged before us.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Sanad Ramakrishnan reiterated all the contentions urged before the learned single Judge. We find on a reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge and on considering the contentions of the writ petitioner that all the contentions are covered against the petitioner by the judgments noted by the learned single Judge. However, we granted three weeks' time to enable the appellant to make the pre- deposit so as to direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client could not make the pre-deposit. Since it is not in dispute that the matter in issue is covered by the judgments noted by the learned single Judge, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. No other grounds are raised before us. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal; the same is hence dismissed.