9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners are aggrieved by dismissal of their appeals by CEGAT, mainly on the ground of non-compliance of the provision of Sec. 35F regarding deposit of the duty demanded and the penalty levied. 3. It is significant to note that petitioners' applications filed under the proviso to Sec. 35F praying for dispensing with pre-deposit of the dues and the penalty were dismissed by the concerning Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) passed order on 17-6-99 dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the provision of Section 35F without going into the merits of the matter. The petitioners also approached the Supreme Court in SLP against the aforesaid order dated 7-5-1999 of this Court. The SLP was also dismissed. However, it was directed that on petitioners' depositing 1/4th of the amount of duty within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities. It was, further, contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the CEGAT before dismissing their appeals ought to have considered their renewed prayer made under the proviso to Section 35F. Reliance is placed on the decision of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 470 and 1989 (43) E.L.T. 605. 5. It is true that deposit under Section 35F is not a condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
