https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374815 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI set aside the impugned order due to non-compliance with section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the appellant. The Tribunal disagreed with the first appellate authority's interpretation regarding the timing of the appeal filing and emphasized that the appeal was within the condonable period. It was noted that the sufficiency of an appeal, post the filing period, determines its maintainability for being entertained. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for proper disposal of the appeal on merit once the pre-deposit requirement was fulfilled, remitting the matter back for a fair adjudication with the appellant given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. en-us Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374815 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI set aside the impugned order due to non-compliance with section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the appellant. The Tribunal disagreed with the first appellate authority's interpretation regarding the timing of the appeal filing and emphasized that the appeal was within the condonable period. It was noted that the sufficiency of an appeal, post the filing period, determines its maintainability for being entertained. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for proper disposal of the appeal on merit once the pre-deposit requirement was fulfilled, remitting the matter back for a fair adjudication with the appellant given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374815