Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of making the pre-deposit. After an amendment on August 6, 2014, neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to waive the pre-deposit requirement u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank emphasized that when a statute confers the right to appeal, conditions can be imposed, and unless the condition precedent of filing an appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. Since the appellant failed to make the required pre-deposit, the Tribunal could not permit the maintenance of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of making the pre-deposit. After an amendment on August 6, 2014, neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to waive the pre-deposit requirement u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank emphasized that when a statute confers the right to appeal, conditions can be imposed, and unless the condition precedent of filing an appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. Since the appellant failed to make the required pre-deposit, the Tribunal could not permit the maintenance of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
