https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261176 The court interpreted Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and Finance Act, 1994, in a case involving a dispute over the deposit amount required by the Service Tax Authorities. The appellant argued that the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) did not consider key factors in its decision. The court referred to a circular by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, stating the appellant only needed to pay 10% of the duty demanded for filing an appeal. The court ordered a stay of CESTAT's order pending the appellant's compliance with the deposit requirement. Failure to comply would lead to enforcement of the full demand against the appellant. en-us Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261176 The court interpreted Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and Finance Act, 1994, in a case involving a dispute over the deposit amount required by the Service Tax Authorities. The appellant argued that the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) did not consider key factors in its decision. The court referred to a circular by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, stating the appellant only needed to pay 10% of the duty demanded for filing an appeal. The court ordered a stay of CESTAT's order pending the appellant's compliance with the deposit requirement. Failure to comply would lead to enforcement of the full demand against the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261176