Mandatory pre-deposit must match the appellant's own penalties; cross-noticee liability cannot be added for appeal maintainability.

Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F had to be computed only on the penalties actually imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty confirmed against a different noticee could not be added to the appellant's liability for this purpose. Since the appellant had already deposited the required amount, the statutory condition for maintaining the appeal was satisfied, and rejection for non-compliance was unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The pre-deposit was required to be computed only on the penalties actually imposed on the appellant, namely the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty attributed to the recipient company could not be added to the appellant's liability for this purpose, as that amount was confirmed against a different noticee. On that basis, the amount already deposited by the appellant satisfied the statutory pre-condition for filing the appeal.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal for want of pre-deposit was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits.

---