https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328763 The Court addressed the company's challenge to a service tax demand, focusing on the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized the premature nature of the affordability issue and instructed the company to pursue remedies through CESTAT. The Court directed the company to restore its appeal before CESTAT, file a restoration application, and seek condonation of delay. The applicability of the amended Section 35-F was left to CESTAT's determination. The judgment disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures and seeking remedies through proper channels. en-us Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:25:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328763 The Court addressed the company's challenge to a service tax demand, focusing on the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized the premature nature of the affordability issue and instructed the company to pursue remedies through CESTAT. The Court directed the company to restore its appeal before CESTAT, file a restoration application, and seek condonation of delay. The applicability of the amended Section 35-F was left to CESTAT's determination. The judgment disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures and seeking remedies through proper channels. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328763