9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. In this case, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) only on the ground that the appellants failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. 2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants filed this appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, informed the applicants that the compliance cannot be accepted in view of the decision in the case of Everest Tubes Ltd. reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 368. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Swill Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1999 (31) R.L.T. 848 after considering the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Everest Tubes Ltd. held that amount of duty directed to be pre-deposited when debi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals) to pre-deposit the duty demand for hearing the appeal, debited the amount in question in their R.G. 23C Pt. II account. This was duly conveyed to the Commissioner (Appeals) vide letter dated 10-7-1999. The impugned order was passed on 20-7-1999 without considering this plea of the applicants. The Tribunal in the case of Swill Ltd. (supra), held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
