9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o entertain a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 35F of the CE Act. As the petitioner having failed to comply with the statutory mandatory requirement, the CESTAT was right in dismissing the Petitioner's appeal by its order. This Court is unable to accede the request of the petitioner that it is great financial difficulty and only needs some more time to pay the pre-deposit amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition to this extent appears misconceived because the aforementioned order is appealable and in fact the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Custom Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which has been dismissed by the CESTAT by an order dated 27th November 2015, which also has been challenged in this petition. 3. In terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944( CE Act ) it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order this Court concurred with the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India 2015 (320) ELT 711 (All) which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 35 F of the CE Act. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 35F of the CE Act. 5. The Petitioner having failed to comply with the statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
