TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal: Pre-deposit Rule Upheld</h1> The Tribunal ruled that the appellants must make the required pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing strict adherence to the ... Pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - Circular of the CESTAT dated 28-8-2014 - Rule 6A of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Held that: - there is no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, CESTAT circular or C.B.E. & C. circular which states that the amount paid in one appeal could be adjusted towards another appeal. The language of Section 35F is very clear and it says that “the Tribunal should not entertain any appeal without making the mandatory pre-deposit specified in the Section” - in view the statutory provision under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we direct all the applicants in these appeals to make mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5%/10% as the case may be. Issues:- Failure to make pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act- Whether the deposit made by the company can be considered as pre-deposit for the associated individuals' appeals- Interpretation of Section 35F and relevant rules and circularsAnalysis:The judgment revolves around the issue of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellants had filed appeals without making the required pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10% of the duty demand, as per the defect memo issued by the Registry. The company had voluntarily deposited a substantial amount during the investigation stage, which the appellants argued should be considered as pre-deposit for their appeals. However, the opposing party contended that the amendment to Section 35F necessitates the mandatory pre-deposit for entertaining appeals before the Tribunal.Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal delved into the provisions of the Central Excise Act, CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, and relevant circulars. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no provision allowing the adjustment of amounts paid in one appeal towards another. The language of Section 35F was deemed explicit, stating that the Tribunal should not entertain any appeal without the specified mandatory pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed all applicants to make the requisite pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10% of the confirmed duty, in compliance with Section 35F, and submit a report by a specified date.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the necessity of fulfilling the mandatory requirements for the Tribunal to entertain appeals. The decision clarifies that the deposit made by the company cannot be considered as pre-deposit for the associated individuals' appeals, reiterating the strict interpretation of the legal provisions governing pre-deposit requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
