https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253441 Repeated pleas of financial hardship, without fresh documentary support, do not justify modification of an existing pre-deposit order. The tribunal found that the hardship claim had already been rejected earlier and was again unsupported by evidence, so the request to vary the stay direction was refused. As no compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was shown, the statutory condition for continuation of the appeal was not met, and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253441 Repeated pleas of financial hardship, without fresh documentary support, do not justify modification of an existing pre-deposit order. The tribunal found that the hardship claim had already been rejected earlier and was again unsupported by evidence, so the request to vary the stay direction was refused. As no compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was shown, the statutory condition for continuation of the appeal was not met, and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253441