https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92937 Dismissal of an appeal for alleged non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F was found unsustainable where the appellants had debited the required amount within time in RG 23A, Part-II and informed the Range Superintendent. The record also showed that the appellants were not given an opportunity of hearing before the appeal was dismissed. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after affording due hearing. en-us Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:10:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92937 Dismissal of an appeal for alleged non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F was found unsustainable where the appellants had debited the required amount within time in RG 23A, Part-II and informed the Range Superintendent. The record also showed that the appellants were not given an opportunity of hearing before the appeal was dismissed. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after affording due hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92937