Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of Central Excise Act.

The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court found no exemption provision and emphasized the statutory conditions that must be met for maintainability. The appellant's challenge to the enforcement of Section 35F was rejected, citing lack of merit and failure to meet the mandatory deposit. The appeal was dismissed without prejudice, with the appellant advised to comply with the deposit and file a recall application for the tribunal's consideration.

---

---

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeal condonation, challenge under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding pre-deposit requirement.

Delay Condonation Application:
Explanation for delay accepted, delay condoned, appeal treated as filed in time.

Challenge under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944:
Appellant challenges tribunal's enforcement of Section 35F, deems it illegal and infringing on right to appeal. Appellant lacks resources for mandatory deposit, argues dismissal would cause grave injury. Appellant's familial relation to firm highlighted, reasons for non-deposit not considered. Reliance on previous orders and judgments for parity and exemption from pre-deposit condition.

Department's Position:
Appeal under Section 35F is statutory, conditions must be met for maintainability. Section 35F requirements outlined, reliance on precedent for mandatory pre-deposit. No substantial question of law for dismissal, statutory provision not challenged.

Judicial Analysis:
Court exercises appellate jurisdiction under Section 35G, appeal rejected for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement in Section 35F. Non-deposit renders appeal non-maintainable, no exemption provision found. Court bound by statutory provisions, no error in refusal to entertain appeal without deposit. Previous orders and judgments not considered in appeal admission, lack of merit leads to dismissal.

Conclusion:
Appeal lacks merit, dismissed without prejudice to compliance with pre-deposit requirement. Appellant advised to comply with 7.5% deposit along with recall application for tribunal's consideration.

---