https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269107 Failure to comply with a pre-deposit direction under the Finance Act barred the appeal, and the pendency of a writ petition against that interim order did not operate as a stay. The dismissal for non-compliance was therefore sustained. Because the dispute had not yet been examined on merits, the matter was nevertheless restored on terms of a reduced pre-deposit, to be made within the stipulated time, after which the Commissioner (Appeals) would hear the appeal on merits. en-us Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:24:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269107 Failure to comply with a pre-deposit direction under the Finance Act barred the appeal, and the pendency of a writ petition against that interim order did not operate as a stay. The dismissal for non-compliance was therefore sustained. Because the dispute had not yet been examined on merits, the matter was nevertheless restored on terms of a reduced pre-deposit, to be made within the stipulated time, after which the Commissioner (Appeals) would hear the appeal on merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269107