https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233705 An appeal under Section 35F could not proceed on merits without compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, unless dispensation was granted on proof of undue hardship. The appellant had been directed to deposit duty, interest and part of the penalty as a condition for hearing, and that direction had already been sustained by the High Court and the Supreme Court. As the appellant still had not complied, dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was treated as legally justified, and the appeal could move forward only after full deposit. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 May 2013 20:00:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233705 An appeal under Section 35F could not proceed on merits without compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, unless dispensation was granted on proof of undue hardship. The appellant had been directed to deposit duty, interest and part of the penalty as a condition for hearing, and that direction had already been sustained by the High Court and the Supreme Court. As the appellant still had not complied, dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was treated as legally justified, and the appeal could move forward only after full deposit. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233705