TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the restoration application seeking revival of the appeal was maintainable despite non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether detention of goods could be treated as compliance with that requirement.
Analysis: The earlier appeal had been dismissed for failure to deposit duty and penalty and for want of any application seeking dispensation from pre-deposit. The restoration application was found incompetent as it had been filed by a consultant rather than by the appellants themselves. The Tribunal further held that the appellants had not complied with the specific direction to either make the pre-deposit or file a proper application under Section 35F. Detention of goods by the department was held not to be a substitute for the mandatory statutory requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
Conclusion: The restoration application was not maintainable and was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a condition precedent for revival of the appeal, and departmental detention of goods does not amount to such compliance.
TaxTMI 
