2021 (7) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....idevi Taritla, ADC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri V. Alagappan appeared and argued the matter. He adverted to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds the service tax should be considered as payment towards mandatory predeposit and the appeal ought to have been considered on merits. It is further submitted by him that when the appellant has made deposit of Rs. 5,74,103/- towards the demand under the order appealed against by them, it is not necessary to demand further pre-deposit separately from them. He prayed that appeal may be allowed. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onfirmed under the Order-in-Original dt. 24.06.2019, the said payment ought to have been considered towards compliance of pre-deposit having been made before the appeal is taken up for hearing. The Commissioner (Appeals) has issued reminders to the appellant to make pre-deposit by online on several dates even though they have made deposit of more than Rs. 5 lakhs which would suffice 7.5% of total ....