https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207219 Further pre-deposit was not required where the assessee had already discharged the duty liability through CENVAT credit and a legal challenge remained to the demand procedure under Rule 8(3A). The tribunal noted that the cited High Court view required a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act even in cases of alleged default, and held that the appeal should be heard on merits without insisting on any additional deposit. The dismissal for non-deposit was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for merits adjudication. en-us Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207219 Further pre-deposit was not required where the assessee had already discharged the duty liability through CENVAT credit and a legal challenge remained to the demand procedure under Rule 8(3A). The tribunal noted that the cited High Court view required a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act even in cases of alleged default, and held that the appeal should be heard on merits without insisting on any additional deposit. The dismissal for non-deposit was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for merits adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207219