https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195499 In a stay application arising from allegations of clandestine removal, the Tribunal held that the appellants had not established a sufficiently strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. The demand had been confirmed and penalties imposed on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, and the appellants also did not appear despite repeated listings. At the stay stage, the Tribunal found no basis for complete waiver and directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty and the other applicants to deposit 50% of the penalty within eight weeks. en-us Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:34:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195499 In a stay application arising from allegations of clandestine removal, the Tribunal held that the appellants had not established a sufficiently strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. The demand had been confirmed and penalties imposed on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, and the appellants also did not appear despite repeated listings. At the stay stage, the Tribunal found no basis for complete waiver and directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty and the other applicants to deposit 50% of the penalty within eight weeks. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195499