https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170532 Existing pre-deposit was treated as sufficient for admission of the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act because the appellant had already deposited a substantial amount and the material on record indicated disputes over document supply, cross-examination, and the demand computation. The competing views turned on whether further deposit was necessary: one Member required additional pre-deposit for want of a strong prima facie case, while the other found that insisting on more would cause undue hardship. The Third Member agreed that the earlier deposit adequately protected Revenue. The balance pre-deposit was waived and recovery of the remaining duty and penalty was stayed during the appeal. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 May 2015 18:03:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170532 Existing pre-deposit was treated as sufficient for admission of the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act because the appellant had already deposited a substantial amount and the material on record indicated disputes over document supply, cross-examination, and the demand computation. The competing views turned on whether further deposit was necessary: one Member required additional pre-deposit for want of a strong prima facie case, while the other found that insisting on more would cause undue hardship. The Third Member agreed that the earlier deposit adequately protected Revenue. The balance pre-deposit was waived and recovery of the remaining duty and penalty was stayed during the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170532