https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110073 Pre-deposit under Section 35F was held unnecessary where the disputed demand arose under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case that the recoverable amount was not duty in the strict sense. Relying on the earlier Pushpaman Forgings view, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the departmental circular discouraging recovery action under the corresponding rule, the Tribunal concluded that insistence on pre-deposit was not warranted at the appeal stage. Waiver of pre-deposit was granted, recovery was stayed for the appeal, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits in accordance with law and natural justice. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:25:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110073 Pre-deposit under Section 35F was held unnecessary where the disputed demand arose under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case that the recoverable amount was not duty in the strict sense. Relying on the earlier Pushpaman Forgings view, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the departmental circular discouraging recovery action under the corresponding rule, the Tribunal concluded that insistence on pre-deposit was not warranted at the appeal stage. Waiver of pre-deposit was granted, recovery was stayed for the appeal, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits in accordance with law and natural justice. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110073