https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263918 The Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the invalidity of Rule 5(1) and the unjust nature of the deposit requirement imposed by CESTAT. The directive to deposit 50% of the demand was set aside, ensuring the appeal would proceed on its substantive merits without burdensome pre-deposit conditions. en-us Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263918 The Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the invalidity of Rule 5(1) and the unjust nature of the deposit requirement imposed by CESTAT. The directive to deposit 50% of the demand was set aside, ensuring the appeal would proceed on its substantive merits without burdensome pre-deposit conditions. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263918