9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , indicating the limitation therein, is provided for in section 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Beyond that threshold, the sufficiency of an appeal will determine its maintainability for being entertained. Hence, the appeal, having been filed on 14th November 2014, is within the condonable period. The change in law mandating pre-deposit come into place on 6th August, 2014 and, with that chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent : Shri VR Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) and Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: C J MATHEW On perusal of this appeal against order-in-appeal no. PUNEXCUS- 003-APP-127-14-15 dated 30th December 2014 of Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune, it is seen that the impugned order did not entertain challenge of the appellant herein on merit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidenced by the e-receipts dated 2nd December 2014 and 19th December 2014, was deposited. 4. The first appellate authority interpreted section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, and in particular the expression entertain , as mandating the pre-deposit before filing of the appeal to be compliant with section 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 that stipulates the period within which appeal is to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to enable appellant to comply. This is absent in the impugned order and it was only by communication dated 9th December 2014 that the appellant was made aware of the deficiency which was made good by them. Upon the matter being taken up for disposal on 30th December, 2014, the requirement of predeposit had been complied with and the first appellate authority, even in the absence of the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
