9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Section 35 of the Act mandates pre-deposit of duty and penalty in accordance with the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority. 2. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of the said provisions vide order dated 1-8-2007. The deposit was to be made by 10-8-2007 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative on the point I am satisfied that the said decision of the Supreme Court would not stand in the way of the appellant in the peculiar facts of this case. As per the clarificatory order dated 7-1-1994 (supra) the rationale of the decision in ONGC case was to minimize the avoidable litigation without affecting the statutory remedies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in doing so. As merits of the case have not been looked into by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is clear that this Tribunal would also not like to go into the same. If the Tribunal comes to conclusion that Commissioner (A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-compliance, it would follow that the matter has to go back for decision on merits. This being the positi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
