https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182029 A Tribunal pre-deposit order was found unsustainable because it was issued again without complying with the High Court's earlier direction to first decide the limitation objection under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court treated that omission as non-compliance with a binding remand direction and set the order aside. However, because the record contained an admission that Rs. 35 lakhs related to the normal period, the limitation objection did not affect that admitted portion. To avoid further delay, the matter was not remitted again, and the assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 35 lakhs while the balance pre-deposit was dispensed with. en-us Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 May 2016 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182029 A Tribunal pre-deposit order was found unsustainable because it was issued again without complying with the High Court's earlier direction to first decide the limitation objection under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court treated that omission as non-compliance with a binding remand direction and set the order aside. However, because the record contained an admission that Rs. 35 lakhs related to the normal period, the limitation objection did not affect that admitted portion. To avoid further delay, the matter was not remitted again, and the assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 35 lakhs while the balance pre-deposit was dispensed with. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182029