2017 (3) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Appeals) ought to have granted a further opportunity to make the pre-deposit as requested by the appellant. As the appeal has been already filed, further adjournment for complying with the mandatory pre-deposit would not make the appeal time barred - as the appellant was not given reasonable time to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit, during the transitional period when the amendment was intr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pre-deposit envisaged in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act which got amendment with effect from 06.08.2014. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellant has requested for further time for payment of pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that further time cannot be allowed for the reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) has powers to condone delay of o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... compliance of mandatory pre-deposit without giving further time. 5. It is seen that the appeal has been filed before Commissioner (Appeals) during the period when the mandatory deposit was introduced. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have granted a further opportunity to make the pre-deposit as requested by the appellant. As the appeal has been already filed, further adjournment for complyin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X