TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit as provided under Section 35-F of the Act before the Commissioner (Appeals) and if the appellant makes the pre-deposit, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the appeal on merits. In fact, the order of the CESTAT does not foreclose the appellant's case, but he is given an option to make the pre-deposit before the 1st appellate authority and if the deposit is made, the first appellate authority shall direct to consider the appellant's case on merits. We fully agree with the order of the CESTAT as it is a mandatory provision that the appellant has to make the pre-deposit as per Section 35F of the Act and only in that case, the appeal need be entertained - the order of the CESTAT is confirmed. Appeal disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not maintainable without the mandatory pre-deposit as provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944. Therefore, I dispose of all these appeals by directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit as provided under Section 35F before the Commissioner( Appeals) and after the appellant makes a pre-deposit, then in that case the Commissioner (Appeals) will decide the appeals of the appellant on merit. With this the present appeals are disposed of. 3. The said order of the CESTAT is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent. 5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 35F of the Act is introduced with effect from 6.8.2014 and that the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty or 10%, as the case may be. Thus the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal is restrained from proceeding with the appeal, unless the pre-deposit, as stated above is made by the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant has not made the pre-deposit as provided under Section 35- F of the Act. 8. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad had gone through this issue in Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India [(2015) 59 taxmann.com 447 (Allahabad)], wherein it was held as follows: 22. For these reasons, we hold that the petitioner would not be justified in urging that the amended provisions of Section 35F(1) of the Act would not apply merely on the ground that the notice to show cause was issued prior to the enforcement of Finance (No.2) Act, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
