https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177527 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the discretionary nature of power under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted the burden of proving undue hardship rests on the party claiming it and required supporting facts. As the Appellant failed to provide specific details regarding the alleged hardship, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court extending the deposit deadline by two weeks and highlighting the necessity of substantial evidence when claiming undue hardship in cases involving pre-deposit waivers and adjudicated liabilities. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:17:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177527 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the discretionary nature of power under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted the burden of proving undue hardship rests on the party claiming it and required supporting facts. As the Appellant failed to provide specific details regarding the alleged hardship, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court extending the deposit deadline by two weeks and highlighting the necessity of substantial evidence when claiming undue hardship in cases involving pre-deposit waivers and adjudicated liabilities. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177527