https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297334 The appeal was initially rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the appellant depositing duty after filing the appeal, deeming it incomplete. However, the Member overturned this decision, emphasizing that pre-deposit under Section 35F is necessary for the disposal of appeals, not for their filing. As the appellant had pre-deposited the amount and filed the appeal within the prescribed time frame, the appeal was allowed for review on its merits, clarifying the interpretation of Sections 35 and 35F of the Central Excise Act. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:20:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297334 The appeal was initially rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the appellant depositing duty after filing the appeal, deeming it incomplete. However, the Member overturned this decision, emphasizing that pre-deposit under Section 35F is necessary for the disposal of appeals, not for their filing. As the appellant had pre-deposited the amount and filed the appeal within the prescribed time frame, the appeal was allowed for review on its merits, clarifying the interpretation of Sections 35 and 35F of the Central Excise Act. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297334