https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257448 The Tribunal upheld the duty demand due to a significant price difference in goods sold to related and unrelated buyers. The appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the pricing gap, leading to a directive for predeposit of a specified amount. The Tribunal denied the waiver of predeposit, citing the lack of financial hardship shown by the appellants. Compliance with the predeposit requirement was mandated within a set timeframe, with a stay on the recovery of the outstanding amount pending the appeal process. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257448 The Tribunal upheld the duty demand due to a significant price difference in goods sold to related and unrelated buyers. The appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the pricing gap, leading to a directive for predeposit of a specified amount. The Tribunal denied the waiver of predeposit, citing the lack of financial hardship shown by the appellants. Compliance with the predeposit requirement was mandated within a set timeframe, with a stay on the recovery of the outstanding amount pending the appeal process. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257448