https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176797 Writ jurisdiction was not used to interfere with the Tribunal's direction requiring pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty, as no basis for interference was found. Financial hardship was nevertheless considered for limited relief, and the petitioner was granted additional time to comply. The deposit period was extended to three months, with permission to make payment in instalments. The direction on pre-deposit therefore remained intact, while the compliance timeline was relaxed on equitable grounds. en-us Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176797 Writ jurisdiction was not used to interfere with the Tribunal's direction requiring pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty, as no basis for interference was found. Financial hardship was nevertheless considered for limited relief, and the petitioner was granted additional time to comply. The deposit period was extended to three months, with permission to make payment in instalments. The direction on pre-deposit therefore remained intact, while the compliance timeline was relaxed on equitable grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176797