https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83963 Where no demand had been created, the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was inapplicable, so the stay application could not survive and was rejected as infructuous. The dispute was also said to arise from a running contract with recurring effect, creating the risk of multiplicity of proceedings, and that consideration justified expediting the matter. Out of turn hearing was therefore granted, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits on the fixed date. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:57:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83963 Where no demand had been created, the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was inapplicable, so the stay application could not survive and was rejected as infructuous. The dispute was also said to arise from a running contract with recurring effect, creating the risk of multiplicity of proceedings, and that consideration justified expediting the matter. Out of turn hearing was therefore granted, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits on the fixed date. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83963