https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100802 The appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise's duty demand and penalty imposition was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance with deposit orders under Section 35F, despite claims of financial hardship. The applicant's modification applications citing financial hardship were rejected, emphasizing the importance of timely and complete compliance with deposit requirements. The Tribunal refused to restore the appeal based on improved financial circumstances years later and highlighted the necessity of adhering to initial deposit obligations promptly to avoid dismissal. The judgment stresses the significance of complying with legal requirements and providing substantial evidence to support claims of financial hardship in legal proceedings before the Tribunal. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:38:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100802 The appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise's duty demand and penalty imposition was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance with deposit orders under Section 35F, despite claims of financial hardship. The applicant's modification applications citing financial hardship were rejected, emphasizing the importance of timely and complete compliance with deposit requirements. The Tribunal refused to restore the appeal based on improved financial circumstances years later and highlighted the necessity of adhering to initial deposit obligations promptly to avoid dismissal. The judgment stresses the significance of complying with legal requirements and providing substantial evidence to support claims of financial hardship in legal proceedings before the Tribunal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100802