TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities, thus following the decision of Amrut Ceramics case [2012 (10) TMI 588 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] wherein considered that the amount deposited by the appellant as enough deposit and remanded the matter back to first appellate authority on the ground that the appellant has deposited the amount more than as directed by this Bench. Thus since the appellant has already deposited more than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has deposited almost 80% of the amount. It is his submission that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals only for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as the appellant did not deposit the entire amount of duty liability as ordered by first appellate authority. 2. Heard the ld.D.R. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as already deposited more than the amount which is ordered for pre-deposit to hear and dispose the appeal, in our view, the amount deposited by the appellant can be considered as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal by the first appellate authority. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
