https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366105 Payment through the CENVAT account that met or exceeded the directed pre-deposit was treated as sufficient compliance under Section 35F, so the appeal was restored. On the demand relating to alleged violation of Rule 8(3A), the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court and relevant High Court orders were stayed, so fresh adjudication was directed after the Supreme Court's decision. The restoration request succeeded, and the substantive dispute was remanded to the adjudicating authority. en-us Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366105 Payment through the CENVAT account that met or exceeded the directed pre-deposit was treated as sufficient compliance under Section 35F, so the appeal was restored. On the demand relating to alleged violation of Rule 8(3A), the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court and relevant High Court orders were stayed, so fresh adjudication was directed after the Supreme Court's decision. The restoration request succeeded, and the substantive dispute was remanded to the adjudicating authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366105