JUDGMENT :- D. MURUGESAN, J. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, raises the following question of law:- "Whether the Tribunal would be competent to decide the appeal filed at the instance of the assessee without deciding first the application for waiver of deposit of the duty demanded or the penalty thereon?" 2. The first respondent visited with the following order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tambaram Division, dated 18.04.2007, "1) I demand Rs.4,82,153/-, being the amount paid short (BED Rs.4,75,847/- and Ed.Cess Rs.6,306/-) during the month of August and September, 2005 under Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2) I demand interest under Section 11 AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3) I impose a penalty of Rs.2000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002." The above order was taken on appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken up the appeal and decided the same on its merit and by order dated 18.04.2007, he allowed the appeal. The fact remains that at the time of filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent/assessee has not filed any application for waiver of pre-deposit, which is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. As against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue filed a further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT'). The CESTAT dismissed the appeal by rejecting the plea of the Revenue that the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) filed by the respondent/assessee should not have been entertained without considering the application for waiver of pre-deposit. The CESTAT also found that the entire duty amount has been paid and therefore, there is no requirement for filing an application under Section 35-f of the Act. 3. Before we consider the challenge to the impugned order, the question of law raised in this appeal must be answered with reference to the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder. 4. 3. Before we consider the challenge to the impugned order, the question of law raised in this appeal must be answered with reference to the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder. 4. As per the provision of Section 35 of the Act, any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act by a Central Excise Officer may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order. Section 35-F of the Act reads as under:- "35-F. Deposit, pending appeal of duty demanded or penalty levied. - Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of central excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied: Provided that where in any particular case, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue..." The provision of Section 35-F uses the expression that where in any appeal, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of central excise authorities or any penalty levied under the Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied. By virtue of this provision, the pre-deposit is held to be mandatory. 5. However, in view of the first proviso to Section 35-F of the Act, the Commissioner, if in his opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, may dispense with such deposit subject to conditions as he may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. 5. However, in view of the first proviso to Section 35-F of the Act, the Commissioner, if in his opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, may dispense with such deposit subject to conditions as he may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. By this provision, the assessee, who has been imposed with the duty or penalty, may approach the appellate authority by filing an application seeking for dispensing with such deposit. In such event, the Commissioner is bound to consider the said application and form his opinion as to whether the waiver of pre-deposit could be granted or not. If the first proviso is read along with the main provision of Section 35, the pre-deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied is mandatory subject to the orders that may be passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of the powers conferred under the first proviso to Section 35-F. Even while dispensing with the application for waiver, the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to impose conditions, which he deems fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. 6. In that view of the matter, in the event an order is passed by the Assessing Officer demanding duty or penalty, the assessee, while questioning the said order, should make a pre-deposit as a condition precedent for filing the appeal. In the event if any difficulty is experienced by the assessee for such pre-deposit, the assessee should make an application before the Commissioner (Appeals) for waiver of pre-deposit. The filing of such application for waiver is mandatory, since in terms of Section 35-F, such pre-deposit should be made. In this context, we may also refer to the provision of Section 35-B wherein the person aggrieved may file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against a decision or order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35-A of the Act. In the event an order for waiver of pre-deposit is granted and the Revenue is affected by that order, it may file an appeal under Section 35-B (b) of the Act. In the absence of a specific order in the waiver application, a right of appeal by the Revenue under Section 35-B (b) is taken away. 7. In the event an order for waiver of pre-deposit is granted and the Revenue is affected by that order, it may file an appeal under Section 35-B (b) of the Act. In the absence of a specific order in the waiver application, a right of appeal by the Revenue under Section 35-B (b) is taken away. 7. Mr.Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee, relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 481 (Mad.), Annapoorna Re-rolling (P) Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai, and contends that no separate orders are necessary on waiver application and the Commissioner (Appeals) would be competent to decide the appeal as such on merits. 8. We have carefully gone through the said judgment. That judgment was rendered on the ground that the Revenue had not chosen to either contest the application seeking to waive the pre-deposit or the appeal itself in spite of service of notice. In the absence of such contest, such a plea is not available to the Revenue when a further appeal to the Tribunal was made. In our opinion, the said judgment on the above set of facts is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. In the present case, the fact remains that the respondent/assessee has not filed any application for waiver at all at the time when the appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In such event, the respondent/assessee could maintain the appeal only after the pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) should not have taken the appeal when the assessee has not made pre-deposit. All the more, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken notice of the fact that the assessee has not even filed an application seeking for waiver of pre-deposit so as to enable him to consider the request under the first proviso to Section 35-F of the Act. This being one of question of law, in our opinion, it should be considered only with reference to the specific provisions of the Act. 10. In support of the above conclusion, we may also refer to the judgments of the Apex Court holding that when the statute contemplates a particular thing to be done, the authorities, who are expected to exercise the power under the specific provision, should strictly adhered to with those provisions. In, Sharif-ud-Dinv. 10. In support of the above conclusion, we may also refer to the judgments of the Apex Court holding that when the statute contemplates a particular thing to be done, the authorities, who are expected to exercise the power under the specific provision, should strictly adhered to with those provisions. In, Sharif-ud-Dinv. Abdul Gani Lone, (1980) 1 SCC 403 , the Apex Court has held that whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to a specific consequence, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and the specified consequence should not follow. Similarly, in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368 , it has been held as follows:- "26.Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed." Again in KunwarPal Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85 , the Apex Court observed that the principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefor in the Act. 11. In view of the above settled proposition, the question of law raised in this appeal is to be answered in favour of the Revenue and it is, accordingly, answered. 12. Though we have found that pre-deposit is a condition precedent for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the filing of application for waiver of such deposit is also a condition precedent, without either of the above, the appeal could not have been entertained by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, keeping the above principle in mind, the facts of the present case should be considered. However, keeping the above principle in mind, the facts of the present case should be considered. Even though the respondent/assessee did not file an application seeking for waiver of pre-deposit and the Commissioner (Appeals) took up the appeal itself for hearing and passed an order allowing the same, the Revenue, only while questioning that order before the CESTAT, has raised the said contention. The CESTAT, having noticed that on the facts of this case, the assessee has already paid the entire amount demanded by way of duty, rejected the contention of the Revenue as to the challenge that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have first considered the question as to whether an application for waiver of pre-deposit was made or not. 13. In our opinion, on the facts of this case, the said question does not arise, as the assessee has already paid the entire amount and the Revenue has not raised the said point before the Commissioner (Appeals) and for the first time, it was raised before the CESTAT. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the CESTAT on the facts of the present case. 14. Accordingly, the question of law raised in this appeal is answered against the Revenue, but on facts. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is dismissed. No costs.