https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380891 Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F had to be computed only on the penalties actually imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty confirmed against a different noticee could not be added to the appellant's liability for this purpose. Since the appellant had already deposited the required amount, the statutory condition for maintaining the appeal was satisfied, and rejection for non-compliance was unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2019 09:11:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380891 Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F had to be computed only on the penalties actually imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty confirmed against a different noticee could not be added to the appellant's liability for this purpose. Since the appellant had already deposited the required amount, the statutory condition for maintaining the appeal was satisfied, and rejection for non-compliance was unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380891