Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that there was no intent to avoid payment of the pre-deposit, and the Revenue Board had provided a facility for making such pre-deposits. Consequently, the court quashed the appellate order and revived the appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per their undertaking.
The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that there was no intent to avoid payment of the pre-deposit, and the Revenue Board had provided a facility for making such pre-deposits. Consequently, the court quashed the appellate order and revived the appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per their undertaking.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
