2020 (3) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rative for the appellant to have deposited 7.5% for the service tax involved. This was not done. On the other hand, an application for waiver of pre-deposit was moved. The deposit of this statutory amount could not have been waived in view of the statutory provision. However one opportunity was required to be given to the appellant to make the deposit. In the interest of justice, it is consider .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the order dated 27 July 2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner by which the demand of service tax was confirmed with interest and penalty. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal for the reason that the appellant did not deposit 7.5% of the service tax involved as was required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve first pressed the waiver application instead of arguing the appeal on merit. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal on account of non-deposit of the statutory amount. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel of the appellant and the Authorized Representative of the Department have been considered. 6. As noted above, it was imperative for the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X