https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125682 Where an appellate order only fixed the APC for specified years and did not confirm any duty liability or impose penalty, the Tribunal held that the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F did not arise and the stay petition became infructuous. It further held that subsequent Revenue actions, including directions to deposit differential duty and detention of goods, could not be dealt with in the present appeal because they were not part of the impugned order. No interim relief was granted on those later actions, but the appellant was given liberty to seek an early hearing for appropriate relief. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:25:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125682 Where an appellate order only fixed the APC for specified years and did not confirm any duty liability or impose penalty, the Tribunal held that the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F did not arise and the stay petition became infructuous. It further held that subsequent Revenue actions, including directions to deposit differential duty and detention of goods, could not be dealt with in the present appeal because they were not part of the impugned order. No interim relief was granted on those later actions, but the appellant was given liberty to seek an early hearing for appropriate relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125682