9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Mandatory deposit under 35F of Central Excise, 1944 - Held that: - no pre-deposit has been made by the appellants as required under section 35F of the Central Excise, 1944. When mandatory pre-deposit has not been made by the appellants, then appeals are not maintainable - applications for Restoration of Appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have not deposited the amount within the prescribed time. So vide order dated 3.4.2012, the Tribunal has dismissed the remaining appeals for violation of mandatory deposit under 35F of Central Excise, 1944, 4. Being aggrieved, all the three appellants have approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, who vide its order dated 21.9.2012 remanded the matter to the Tribunal pertaining to pre-depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e its order dated 11.12.2015 has dismissed all three civil appeals. (14068-69/2015, 14088-89/2015 Supreme Court vide order dated 11.12.2015). 7. After the dismissal of Civil Appeals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants again moved the application before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 22.2.2016. But the Hon'ble High Court refused to entertain and dismissed the same vide its or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ROAs. 11. List revised, none present on behalf of the appellants. Learned representative of the department submits that no pre-deposit has been made by the appellants as required under section 35F of the Central Excise, 1944. When mandatory pre-deposit has not been made by the appellants, then appeals are not maintainable. 12. Hence, all three applications for Restoration of Appeals are dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
