https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335194 The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's order requiring a pre-deposit, extending the time by 10 weeks. Despite the applicants' non-compliance and subsequent attempts to modify the stay order, their appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal for failure to adhere to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicants' argument that payment of disputed duty alone warranted appeal restoration was rejected, as interest and penalties were also outstanding per the order. The Tribunal emphasized statutory compliance, leading to the dismissal of the restoration applications. en-us Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:52:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335194 The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's order requiring a pre-deposit, extending the time by 10 weeks. Despite the applicants' non-compliance and subsequent attempts to modify the stay order, their appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal for failure to adhere to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicants' argument that payment of disputed duty alone warranted appeal restoration was rejected, as interest and penalties were also outstanding per the order. The Tribunal emphasized statutory compliance, leading to the dismissal of the restoration applications. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335194