2011 (2) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be argued, reveal compliance of the said requirement were available before the Commissioner (Appeals) prior to passing of impugned order - Hence, considering the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur[2010 -TMI - 77318 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the same .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f being heard on the issue of non-compliance of the requirement of deposit before the appeal was dismissed, was afforded to the appellants and further submitted that had there been such an opportunity, the appellants would have been able to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) that the requirement of section 35F were already satisfied by the appellants. In that regard, attention is drawn to the extr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (Appeals) prior to passing of impugned order. In such circumstances, considering the law laid down by the Tribunal in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the same in accordance with the law. Liberty to the appellants to place necessary records in relation to the RG entries which could reveal com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X