https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336627 The Tribunal held that the appellant's argument for adjusting the amount paid at the first appellate stage against the deposit required for filing an appeal before the Tribunal was not permissible. Emphasizing the clear and unambiguous language of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal applied the principle of literal interpretation in taxing statutes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirement of 10% specified under Section 35F for entertaining an appeal. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Dec 2016 11:09:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336627 The Tribunal held that the appellant's argument for adjusting the amount paid at the first appellate stage against the deposit required for filing an appeal before the Tribunal was not permissible. Emphasizing the clear and unambiguous language of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal applied the principle of literal interpretation in taxing statutes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirement of 10% specified under Section 35F for entertaining an appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336627