https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326959 The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 35(g) of the Central Excise Act, noting the applicant's actions were based on legal advice and the pre-deposit was made. The appeal was registered upon payment of costs. The court found a jurisdictional error in not considering financial hardship grounds by CESTAT, allowing the withdrawal of the deposited amount with interest. The appeal was restored for proper adjudication, emphasizing the obligation to consider financial hardship in pre-deposit matters. The judgment stresses the importance of addressing all relevant factors, including financial hardship, in such cases. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326959 The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 35(g) of the Central Excise Act, noting the applicant's actions were based on legal advice and the pre-deposit was made. The appeal was registered upon payment of costs. The court found a jurisdictional error in not considering financial hardship grounds by CESTAT, allowing the withdrawal of the deposited amount with interest. The appeal was restored for proper adjudication, emphasizing the obligation to consider financial hardship in pre-deposit matters. The judgment stresses the importance of addressing all relevant factors, including financial hardship, in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326959