TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On going through the amended provisions of Section 35F, it is noted that though the heading of the said Section is to the effect that deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalties imposed before filing of appeal , the Section itself is to the effect that- the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal- unless the appellant has depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant Shri Ramji Khare, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Additional Commissioner (AR). Per : Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as not maintainable, inasmuch as, the appellant deposited 7.5% of duty subsequent to the filing of appeal. He has observed that inasmuch as, the appeal was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Section 35 (1) empowers Commissioner (Appeals) to further condone the delay of 30 days. However, on going through the said Section, I do not find any provision to the extent that appeal filed would not be taken as complete appeal, unless the pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F is made. The only requirement in Sub-section 2 of Section 35 is that every appeal under this Section shall be in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the pre-deposit in terms of amended provisions of Section 35F is a requirement for disposal of appeal and not a requirement of filing of the appeal. 4. In view of above discussions, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals), for decision on merit, inasmuch as, the appellant has admittedly pre-deposited the amount in terms of Section 35F of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
