https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209220 The appeal was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order that dismissed the appeal solely due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the merits without requiring the appellant to make a pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The appellate authorities had overlooked the appellant's claim of taking credit based on the original invoice, leading to the unsustainable pre-deposit order. The decision emphasized the necessity of thoroughly reviewing the merits without imposing the pre-deposit condition. en-us Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209220 The appeal was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order that dismissed the appeal solely due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the merits without requiring the appellant to make a pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The appellate authorities had overlooked the appellant's claim of taking credit based on the original invoice, leading to the unsustainable pre-deposit order. The decision emphasized the necessity of thoroughly reviewing the merits without imposing the pre-deposit condition. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209220