https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93982 Non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F can justify insisting on deposit before the appeal is entertained, and the appellate forum may still preserve the merits dispute for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal accepted, on a prima facie basis, that the amount directed to be deposited was liable to pre-deposit, upheld that direction, granted time to comply, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo hearing on merits after proof of deposit. The substantive controversy was therefore left open for decision after compliance. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:11:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93982 Non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F can justify insisting on deposit before the appeal is entertained, and the appellate forum may still preserve the merits dispute for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal accepted, on a prima facie basis, that the amount directed to be deposited was liable to pre-deposit, upheld that direction, granted time to comply, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo hearing on merits after proof of deposit. The substantive controversy was therefore left open for decision after compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93982