https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126156 The tribunal rejected the appellants' application for modification of a stay order requiring a 50% deposit of the duty amount demanded due to financial difficulties. The tribunal emphasized the need to safeguard the Revenue's interest in cases of clandestine removal. Despite the rejection, the appellants were granted an additional 12 weeks to make the deposit in the interest of justice. The High Court upheld the tribunal's decision, stating that financial hardship alone could not justify waiving the pre-deposit requirement. The applications for modification of the stay order were ultimately rejected. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:10:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126156 The tribunal rejected the appellants' application for modification of a stay order requiring a 50% deposit of the duty amount demanded due to financial difficulties. The tribunal emphasized the need to safeguard the Revenue's interest in cases of clandestine removal. Despite the rejection, the appellants were granted an additional 12 weeks to make the deposit in the interest of justice. The High Court upheld the tribunal's decision, stating that financial hardship alone could not justify waiving the pre-deposit requirement. The applications for modification of the stay order were ultimately rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126156