Pre-deposit under excise appeal rules cannot be enforced until duty is quantified and communicated.

The pre-deposit requirement could not be enforced where the duty payable had not been quantified or specified, because the obligation to deposit arose only after the appellant was informed of the amount due. As the separate demand did not quantify the duty and the order-in-original left the amount blank, the appellant could not be expected to compute the deposit independently. Rejection of the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit was therefore not sustainable, and the matter was remanded for consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal could be rejected for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement when the amount of duty to be deposited had not been quantified or specified.

Analysis: The requirement of deposit under section 35F arose only after the appellant was informed of the amount payable. As no separate demand quantified the duty and the order-in-original also left the amount blank, the appellant could not be expected to calculate the deposit on its own. Rejection of the appeal for non-deposit in these circumstances was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal for non-deposit was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for consideration on merits.

---