https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233599 The company's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as it failed to reduce the deposit amount as directed by the court. The Managing Director's appeal remains pending. Additionally, errors in the cause-title of the Stay Order were rectified by directing the stenographer to retype the order accurately. Compliance with statutory requirements and accuracy in legal documentation were emphasized in the judgment. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233599 The company's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as it failed to reduce the deposit amount as directed by the court. The Managing Director's appeal remains pending. Additionally, errors in the cause-title of the Stay Order were rectified by directing the stenographer to retype the order accurately. Compliance with statutory requirements and accuracy in legal documentation were emphasized in the judgment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233599