9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted the pre-deposit as stated in Section 35-F of the Act. Even though the order of the CESTAT is sustained, the appellant is granted three months time from today to comply with the condition of payment as mandated under Section 35F of the Act - Appeal disposed off. - C.E.APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2021 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI APPELLANTS: C.K. KARUNAKARAN OTHER PRESENT: SR SC SREELAL WARRIER JUDGMENT Basant Balaji J., The appellant, a private limited company, challenges the order dated 8.12.2017 of the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in appeal No.E/21410/2017 DB. 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014. 6. The counsel relied on the 2nd proviso to Section 35- F of the Act: Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. 7. The counsel for the respondent Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that Section 35-F is introduced by Act 25 of 2014 and in order to maintain an appeal, the pre-deposit as stated in the sub-clauses is to be mandatorily complied with. According to him, since the pre-deposit is not made by the appellant, the rejection of appeal by the appellate authorities is in order and requires no interference by this Court. 8. Section 35-F of the Act reads as fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the pre-deposit as stated in Section 35-F of the Act. 10. The counsel for the appellant has made one more submission that the Registry of the Tribunal has not raised any objection as regards the pre-deposit when the appeal memorandum was scrutinised and in that case, if the appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that mandatory deposit is not made by the appellant, the appellant should have given an opportunity to pay the required pre-deposit, which was not done by the Tribunal. On going through the order of CESTAT, it can be seen that at the time of hearing of the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay, it was found that there was no proof of mandatory pre-deposit and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of Section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
