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.
The HC dismissed the appellant's appeal for failure to comply with the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% of the penalty under s.129E of the 1962 Act, noting the SC's authority on identical facts and the applicability of the amended provision to pending proceedings. On being asked whether the appellant would make the pre-deposit, counsel confirmed inability to do so; consequently the HC refused to remit the matter to CESTAT for consideration on merits. Given non-compliance with the condition precedent and absence of a prima facie case warranting equitable relief, the appeal is rejected and stands dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.