TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 Accepts 10% Pre-deposit, Orders Fresh Review on Appeal, Citing Precedent for Non-compliance Issue.</h1> <h3>Sea Sparkle Harbour Services Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad - II</h3> The Appellant's non-compliance with the Pre-deposit requirement led to an Appeal. The Appellant deposited 10% of the litigated amount, which the Tribunal ... Dismissal of appeal on the ground that Appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act without going into its merits - HELD THAT:- The provisions towards Pre-deposit under Section 35F were amended w.e.f. 06.08.2014. Learned Counsel submits that as per this, the Appellant is required to pay total 10% of the litigated amount when the matter is taken up for Hearing before the Tribunal. This condition has been fulfilled by them since they have made payment of Rs.4,13,960/- by way of challan - this amount is sufficient Pre-deposit for Hearing the case by the Commissioner (Appeals). Similar issue was before the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACCRA PAC INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -DAMAN [2023 (9) TMI 1552 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], wherein it was held that 'We find that though at the time of passing the said order by the Commissioner (Appeals) the amended provision of Section 35 F was not in force. However, in the matters coming before the Tribunal related to pre-deposit after the amendment of Section 35 F, this Tribunal taking a lenient view allowing the admission of the appeal on pre-deposit of 10% as prescribed under amended Section 35 F. Therefore, we are also of the view that since the appellant have already deposited 10% of the duty amount, the same is sufficient to hear the appeal on merit.' The matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to take up the Appeal on record and decide the issue on merits. The Appeal was filed due to non-compliance with the Pre-deposit requirement. The Appellant made a 10% Pre-deposit of the litigated amount. The Tribunal found this amount sufficient for Hearing the case. The Tribunal referred to a similar case and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit.
TaxTMI 
