2009 (6) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nment, by the Appellant. Shri B.S. Suhag, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. -  Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these appeals, they were taken up for hearing together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Since none has appeared for the appellants, we have gone through the record and with the help of lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owever, by the impugned order while dismissing those applications also dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appellants had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. There is no doubt that Section 35F of the said Act clearly requires the appellant to deposit the amount demanded as duty or penalty or interest by the adjudicating authority u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arty. Being so, under the orders sought to be challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) there was no amount quantified as due and payable by the appellant to the Department. 5. It was sought to be contended that the adjudicating authority ought to have directed the amount in respect of which the claim was rejected to be paid by the appellant to the Department as the amount claimed related .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X