https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77725 Interference with an interlocutory pre-deposit and conditional stay order was held to be unwarranted where the Commissioner (Appeals) exercised appellate discretion. Challenges based on the prospective or retrospective operation of the notification and limitation were treated as merits issues, not matters for final determination at the pre-deposit stage. The court reiterated that extraordinary jurisdiction is justified only when the impugned order is without jurisdiction or is so exceptional as to shock the conscience, which was not shown. The deposit amount was also viewed in light of the assessed service tax, interest and penalty. The request to replace the deposit with a bank guarantee was left open before the appellate authority. en-us Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2011 10:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77725 Interference with an interlocutory pre-deposit and conditional stay order was held to be unwarranted where the Commissioner (Appeals) exercised appellate discretion. Challenges based on the prospective or retrospective operation of the notification and limitation were treated as merits issues, not matters for final determination at the pre-deposit stage. The court reiterated that extraordinary jurisdiction is justified only when the impugned order is without jurisdiction or is so exceptional as to shock the conscience, which was not shown. The deposit amount was also viewed in light of the assessed service tax, interest and penalty. The request to replace the deposit with a bank guarantee was left open before the appellate authority. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77725