https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74573 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. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:34:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74573 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74573