2018 (11) TMI 1519 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Failure to make pre-deposit – Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to the Service Tax matters under Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- The requirement of Section 35F of the Act, have been complied with, for entertaining the appeal of the appellant.
–
However, since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of noncompliance of the requirement of Section 35F of the Act, and no findings have been recorded with regard to the merits of the case, the matter should be remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh on the basis of the available records and the submissions to be made by the appellant.
–
Appea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sit has not been made as per the statutory provisions. 4. The authorized representative appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that out of the total adjudged demand of ₹ 3,85,995/-, the appellant had already deposited ₹ 4,10,297/- before filing the appeal in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, he submits that such extra deposit made by the appellant constitute sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 35F of the Act. The learned D.R., upon verification of the payment particulars, has also confirmed that the appellant had deposited more amount than the adjudged demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. 5. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =