https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220596 The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an order requiring a deposit of Rs.75,00,000 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The Court found that the appellants' arguments, including misreading of evidence and undue hardship, did not warrant consideration. The allegations of fraudulently availing cenvat credit without physical receipts were upheld, leading to the refusal to waive the pre-deposit requirement due to potential revenue risk. The Court emphasized that fraud allegations do not merit leniency at the pre-deposit stage, leading to the dismissal of the case. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:04:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220596 The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an order requiring a deposit of Rs.75,00,000 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The Court found that the appellants' arguments, including misreading of evidence and undue hardship, did not warrant consideration. The allegations of fraudulently availing cenvat credit without physical receipts were upheld, leading to the refusal to waive the pre-deposit requirement due to potential revenue risk. The Court emphasized that fraud allegations do not merit leniency at the pre-deposit stage, leading to the dismissal of the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220596