https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98747 The Tribunal upheld the pre-deposit order under Section 35F, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions. The appellants were directed to file a bank guarantee for 50% of the confirmed duty to secure the revenue, allowing for the appeal to proceed promptly. Despite claims of financial hardship and prima facie cases on merits, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, stressing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements. The Tribunal rejected pleas for unconditional stay and waiver, underscoring the need for compliance with appellate orders and Supreme Court judgments. en-us Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:30:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98747 The Tribunal upheld the pre-deposit order under Section 35F, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions. The appellants were directed to file a bank guarantee for 50% of the confirmed duty to secure the revenue, allowing for the appeal to proceed promptly. Despite claims of financial hardship and prima facie cases on merits, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, stressing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements. The Tribunal rejected pleas for unconditional stay and waiver, underscoring the need for compliance with appellate orders and Supreme Court judgments. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98747