https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105875 A stay order conditioned continuation of the appeals on a pre-deposit, and the Tribunal declined to modify that condition when the appellant failed to make the directed deposit. It noted that nearly a year had passed since the earlier stay order and that the appellant could not indicate compliance within the next three months. As the pre-deposit requirement remained unfulfilled, the stay application was rejected and the appeals were not allowed to proceed without the mandated deposit. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed both appeals for non-compliance with the conditional deposit requirement under Section 35C. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:43:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105875 A stay order conditioned continuation of the appeals on a pre-deposit, and the Tribunal declined to modify that condition when the appellant failed to make the directed deposit. It noted that nearly a year had passed since the earlier stay order and that the appellant could not indicate compliance within the next three months. As the pre-deposit requirement remained unfulfilled, the stay application was rejected and the appeals were not allowed to proceed without the mandated deposit. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed both appeals for non-compliance with the conditional deposit requirement under Section 35C. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105875