https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213873 Further pre-deposit was not insisted upon where the petitioner had already debited a substantial part of the disputed amount, the matter had remained pending for a long period, and the company was under protective orders due to sick industrial status. In these circumstances, the Madras HC directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits and dispose of it expeditiously without requiring any additional pre-deposit. The relief was granted to secure an effective appellate hearing rather than prolong recovery-related proceedings. en-us Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213873 Further pre-deposit was not insisted upon where the petitioner had already debited a substantial part of the disputed amount, the matter had remained pending for a long period, and the company was under protective orders due to sick industrial status. In these circumstances, the Madras HC directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits and dispose of it expeditiously without requiring any additional pre-deposit. The relief was granted to secure an effective appellate hearing rather than prolong recovery-related proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213873