https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336535 The Appeal was dismissed as the mandatory deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not made by the Appellant. The Court clarified that the deposit requirement is distinct from admitted tax liability, rejecting the Appellant's argument citing a different case law. Compliance with Section 35F was deemed essential for Appeal admission, emphasizing statutory adherence in Service Tax matters before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA. en-us Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:16:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336535 The Appeal was dismissed as the mandatory deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not made by the Appellant. The Court clarified that the deposit requirement is distinct from admitted tax liability, rejecting the Appellant's argument citing a different case law. Compliance with Section 35F was deemed essential for Appeal admission, emphasizing statutory adherence in Service Tax matters before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336535