Spectre of Section 35C(2A) rises again

Gururaj Sir
There can be another issue that could arise here. An appellant, while arguing a case before the CESTAT in respect of his appeal filed before 6-8-2014 can ask for the benefit of the mandatory pre-deposit as an option. The constitutional validity of Section 35F can be challenged on the basis that it is violative of Article 14 in as much as, an appellant who has filed an appeal prior to 6-8-2014 is being discriminated vis-a-vis an appeal who has filed the appeal on or after 6-8-2014. The discrimination could arise on account of the denial of the benefit of the lower pre-deposit rates and an Appellant who is asked to pay up a higher pre-deposit (of let's say, 50%) could go to the High Court.

I understand that the Rajasthan High Court, in a recent case, has stayed the pre-deposit order of the Tribunal which had asked the appellant to deposit 50% of the service tax as pre-deposit, in the case of RSID & Investment Corp Ltd Versus UO I/Commissioner Of Central Excise NCR, on the prima facie view that the appellant, who had filed the appeal prior to 6-8-2014 is entitled to the benefit of the pre-deposit percentages mentioned in Section 35F of the CEA.

Section 35F is bound to see a lot of litigation before the High Courts, for sure.

S Sivakumar, Advocate

SUBRAMANI SIVAKUMAR 21/04/2015