https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92914 The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 2 crores under a stay order pursuant to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, focusing on the classification of stationary cells and batteries. The appellant argued for synonymous treatment of the two, citing technical definitions and financial hardships, while the respondent emphasized distinctions and alleged mis-declaration. The Tribunal, following the High Court's directives, required a bank guarantee for the duty amount within six weeks, waiving the penalty, to safeguard Revenue interests and ensure compliance. Compliance with the bank guarantee directive was necessary for further proceedings. en-us Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:53:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92914 The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 2 crores under a stay order pursuant to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, focusing on the classification of stationary cells and batteries. The appellant argued for synonymous treatment of the two, citing technical definitions and financial hardships, while the respondent emphasized distinctions and alleged mis-declaration. The Tribunal, following the High Court's directives, required a bank guarantee for the duty amount within six weeks, waiving the penalty, to safeguard Revenue interests and ensure compliance. Compliance with the bank guarantee directive was necessary for further proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92914