https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83888 In stay proceedings, the Tribunal balanced the appellants' financial hardship, the closure of the factory, and the disputed duty and penalty demands against the need to secure revenue. It found that insisting on full pre-deposit would cause undue hardship, but complete waiver was not justified because part of the demand was still in issue, including a stated time-bar contention on after-sales service charges. The Tribunal therefore granted only partial waiver of pre-deposit and directed a reduced cash deposit with a bank guarantee, while protecting recovery of the balance during the pendency of the appeal. en-us Tue, 27 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:04:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83888 In stay proceedings, the Tribunal balanced the appellants' financial hardship, the closure of the factory, and the disputed duty and penalty demands against the need to secure revenue. It found that insisting on full pre-deposit would cause undue hardship, but complete waiver was not justified because part of the demand was still in issue, including a stated time-bar contention on after-sales service charges. The Tribunal therefore granted only partial waiver of pre-deposit and directed a reduced cash deposit with a bank guarantee, while protecting recovery of the balance during the pendency of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83888