https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328304 The court upheld the validity of the second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the orders passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT on applications for exemption from pre-deposit. The Finance Act, 2014 limited pre-deposit to 7.5% or 10% of the demand for maintaining an appeal. Appeals would be heard upon depositing 15% of the duty or penalty within one month to expedite proceedings. Non-compliance with pre-deposit orders could lead to appeal dismissals, but appeals could be restored by depositing the directed amount. Compliance with the directed deposit amount within the specified timeframe was emphasized for appeal restoration. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328304 The court upheld the validity of the second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the orders passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT on applications for exemption from pre-deposit. The Finance Act, 2014 limited pre-deposit to 7.5% or 10% of the demand for maintaining an appeal. Appeals would be heard upon depositing 15% of the duty or penalty within one month to expedite proceedings. Non-compliance with pre-deposit orders could lead to appeal dismissals, but appeals could be restored by depositing the directed amount. Compliance with the directed deposit amount within the specified timeframe was emphasized for appeal restoration. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328304