2019 (2) TMI 1768 - AT - Central Excise

Compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit - Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the appellant has not complied with the said provisions for entertaining this appeal, in that circumstance, we are unable to hear the appeal filed by the appellant and pre-deposit made in another appeal cannot be treated as pre-deposit for this appellant. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Failure to make mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment pertains to a case where the appellant failed to make a mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a proprietary concern, had filed two appeals - one in the name of the proprietor and another in the name of the appellant. The appellant argued that the pre-deposit made in the proprietor's case should be considered as pre-deposit in the appellant's case. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not comply with the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that under the provisions of Section 35F, a mandatory pre-deposit is necessary to file an appeal. As the appellant failed to fulfill this requirement, the Tribunal held that the appeal could not be entertained due to the lack of the mandatory deposit. Thus, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The decision was based on the clear non-compliance with the statutory requirement of making a pre-deposit as mandated by the law. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal matters, especially concerning pre-deposit obligations under relevant statutes.