https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247290 The Tribunal disposed of the substantive appeal without requiring a pre-deposit despite an earlier order directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the adjudicated tax liability. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit due to the limited scope of the issue. The appeal's maintainability under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was questioned, with the judgment emphasizing the necessity of pre-deposit to trigger the appellate Commissioner's jurisdiction. The waiver of pre-deposit granted jurisdiction to hear the appeal, subject to compliance with any deposit ordered. The appeal against the order directing the deposit of 50% of the tax liability was deemed not maintainable and rejected by the Tribunal. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2014 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247290 The Tribunal disposed of the substantive appeal without requiring a pre-deposit despite an earlier order directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the adjudicated tax liability. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit due to the limited scope of the issue. The appeal's maintainability under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was questioned, with the judgment emphasizing the necessity of pre-deposit to trigger the appellate Commissioner's jurisdiction. The waiver of pre-deposit granted jurisdiction to hear the appeal, subject to compliance with any deposit ordered. The appeal against the order directing the deposit of 50% of the tax liability was deemed not maintainable and rejected by the Tribunal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247290