https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345923 The appeal was dismissed as it was filed without the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to non-compliance with Section 35F, emphasizing the necessity of pre-deposit post the amendment. The appellant's argument that the issue pertained only to taxability, not Service Tax, was not upheld. The judgment directed the appellant to make the pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration of the appeal on its merits. en-us Wed, 17 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2017 09:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345923 The appeal was dismissed as it was filed without the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to non-compliance with Section 35F, emphasizing the necessity of pre-deposit post the amendment. The appellant's argument that the issue pertained only to taxability, not Service Tax, was not upheld. The judgment directed the appellant to make the pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration of the appeal on its merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 17 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345923