https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204172 The HC held that insistence on pre-deposit under Section 35F was unwarranted where the appeal raised a substantial question on whether zinc dross was an excisable and marketable commodity. In light of binding Supreme Court authority on marketability and excisability, the Tribunal was required to examine the dispute on merits rather than condition the appeal on deposit. The pre-deposit direction was therefore set aside, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. en-us Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 May 2011 17:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204172 The HC held that insistence on pre-deposit under Section 35F was unwarranted where the appeal raised a substantial question on whether zinc dross was an excisable and marketable commodity. In light of binding Supreme Court authority on marketability and excisability, the Tribunal was required to examine the dispute on merits rather than condition the appeal on deposit. The pre-deposit direction was therefore set aside, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204172