Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with deposit requirement under Central Excise Act. The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with deposit requirement under Central Excise Act.
The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's subsequent claim of debiting the amount was deemed insufficient. The appellant proposed to make the deposit within four weeks as a gesture of good faith. A further hearing was scheduled by the Tribunal to evaluate the appellant's commitment. (1996 (4) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
The appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant later claimed to have debited the amount in RG 23C Part II, but this was not considered compliance. The appellant offered to make the deposit within four weeks to demonstrate good faith. The Tribunal scheduled a further hearing to assess the appellant's sincerity. (Case Citation: 1996 (4) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
