9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order apparently discloses that the appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of non-compliance of Section 35 F of the said Act - The impugned order, however, does not disclose any opportunity having been given to the appellants to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) as to why the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of Section 35 F of the Act. Besides, as the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals), Chandigarh. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the adjudicating authority has been dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act. 3. The adjudicating authority by its order dated 13.2.2008 had rejected the claim for refund of Rs.7,94,221/-, which was claimed by the appellants on account of pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants be permitted to argue the matter on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Perusal of the impugned order apparently discloses that the appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of non-compliance of Section 35 F of the said Act. The impugned order, however, does not disclose any opportunity having been given to the appellants to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) as to why the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to deposit the required amount in terms of Section 35 F within eight weeks from to-day. On such deposit being made, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall hear the appellants on merits of the case and shall decide the appeal in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say that the present order has been passed subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 35 F of the said Act by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
