9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught to be challenged requires the appellant to pay certain amount under such order. In a case where the order does not require the appellant to pay the amount question of such objection to deposit the amount does not arise. - the appellant is justified in contending that the Commissioner could not have directed under Section 35F to deposit or to reject the appeals but should have proceeded to hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim on the basis of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002. The Assistant Commissioner who heard the matters partly allowed the refund claim while partly rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the order rejecting the claim the party filed three different appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) at Chandigarh. Under order dated 21-8-2008, the appellants were directed to deposit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit in terms of Section 35F would arise only in case where the order sought to be challenged requires the appellant to pay certain amount under such order. In a case where the order does not require the appellant to pay the amount question of such objection to deposit the amount does not arise. 4. Perusal of the orders passed by the adjudicating authority in the matter in hand would reveal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be said that the appellants were under any obligation to deposit any amount while filing the appeal. In this view of the matter, the appellant is justified in contending that the Commissioner could not have directed under Section 35F to deposit or to reject the appeals but should have proceeded to hear the appeals on merits. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
