https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116425 Financial hardship justified dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as the appellant's condition was found to be precarious. The Tribunal also reiterated its prima facie view that penalties under rule 209A are not leviable where no confiscation of goods has been ordered, supporting waiver of deposit. However, the request for stay of recovery of the adjudicated duties and penalties was refused, so the appellants remained without interim protection against recovery while the appeal proceeded. en-us Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:49:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116425 Financial hardship justified dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as the appellant's condition was found to be precarious. The Tribunal also reiterated its prima facie view that penalties under rule 209A are not leviable where no confiscation of goods has been ordered, supporting waiver of deposit. However, the request for stay of recovery of the adjudicated duties and penalties was refused, so the appellants remained without interim protection against recovery while the appeal proceeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116425