Appeal Competency Upheld, Deposit Waiver for Hardship, Implementation Stayed The High Court of Judicature at Madras ruled that an appeal is competent against the impugned order. The petitioner may request discretion to not deposit ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal Competency Upheld, Deposit Waiver for Hardship, Implementation Stayed
The High Court of Judicature at Madras ruled that an appeal is competent against the impugned order. The petitioner may request discretion to not deposit the amount required by Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 if it causes undue hardship. The writ petition was dismissed, but the impugned order will not be implemented for two weeks to allow the petitioner to pursue the appeal process.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras ruled that an appeal is competent against the impugned order. The petitioner may request discretion to not deposit the amount required by Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 if it causes undue hardship. The writ petition was dismissed, but the impugned order will not be implemented for two weeks to allow the petitioner to pursue the appeal process.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.