https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211517 The HC dismissed the assessee's appeal challenging CESTAT's order of conditional waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35-F. It held that, although CESTAT must consider "undue hardship" under Section 35-G, it is not bound to grant full waiver in every such case and must also safeguard the interest of revenue. The direction to deposit an amount less than 15% of the total tax and penalty was found to be a proper and legal exercise of discretion, not warranting interference under Section 35-G. The HC only extended the time for making the directed deposit by three weeks, directing CESTAT to hear the appeal if payment is made. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211517 The HC dismissed the assessee's appeal challenging CESTAT's order of conditional waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35-F. It held that, although CESTAT must consider "undue hardship" under Section 35-G, it is not bound to grant full waiver in every such case and must also safeguard the interest of revenue. The direction to deposit an amount less than 15% of the total tax and penalty was found to be a proper and legal exercise of discretion, not warranting interference under Section 35-G. The HC only extended the time for making the directed deposit by three weeks, directing CESTAT to hear the appeal if payment is made. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211517