https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78856 The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving undue financial hardship lies with the applicants, requiring factual evidence to support their claim. Mere assertions without concrete proof were deemed insufficient for a stay without deposit. The applicants' plea for modification based on financial crisis was not supported by adequate material, leading the Tribunal to extend the compliance period but maintain the deposit requirement. The penalty amount directed at the partner was excluded from the total deposit, with no further changes deemed necessary. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing detailed financial information to establish undue hardship in stay applications. en-us Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:40:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78856 The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving undue financial hardship lies with the applicants, requiring factual evidence to support their claim. Mere assertions without concrete proof were deemed insufficient for a stay without deposit. The applicants' plea for modification based on financial crisis was not supported by adequate material, leading the Tribunal to extend the compliance period but maintain the deposit requirement. The penalty amount directed at the partner was excluded from the total deposit, with no further changes deemed necessary. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing detailed financial information to establish undue hardship in stay applications. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78856