2016 (12) TMI 1180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ge, Kanpur and Another [1967 (9) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], holding that appeal is maintainable even if deposit is not made - Held that: - It is observed from proviso to Section 9 of U.P.Sales Tax Act, 1948 quoted in the case law relied upon by the Appellant, that only admitted tax liability was required to be paid by an assessee in Sales Tax. In the case of Section 35F of the Central Exci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kata. 2. Shri A.D.Roy (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that no mandatory deposit, required as per amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, has been made by the Appellant. It was his case that even if no mandatory deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act is made then also Appeal filed by the Appellant is required to be admitted. Ld.Advoca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. In the present case mandatory deposit as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to Service Tax matters, has not been deposited by the Appellant. It is their case that the same is not required to be paid before admitting the Appeal for deciding the issue on merits. Learned Advocate relied upon the Apex Court s ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X