https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122093 A dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit could not be sustained where the lower appellate authority had taken inconsistent views on whether the amendment to Rule 57D(2) was clarificatory and retrospective, and had recorded no merits finding on eligibility to credit. The Tribunal held that these circumstances disclosed a strong prima facie case warranting waiver of pre-deposit. The dismissal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits, with the appeal to be heard without insisting on pre-deposit. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:12:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122093 A dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit could not be sustained where the lower appellate authority had taken inconsistent views on whether the amendment to Rule 57D(2) was clarificatory and retrospective, and had recorded no merits finding on eligibility to credit. The Tribunal held that these circumstances disclosed a strong prima facie case warranting waiver of pre-deposit. The dismissal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits, with the appeal to be heard without insisting on pre-deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122093