https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407718 The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to entertain the Appeal without pre-deposit. The Court upheld the Registry's demand for a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax liability, emphasizing the statutory requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the petitioner's arguments and cited precedents, the Court held that the pre-deposit could not be waived to ensure the expeditious resolution of appeals. The Court directed the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the jurisdictional officer confirming the non-adjustment or refund of the debited amount within two months for consideration towards the mandatory deposit. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407718 The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to entertain the Appeal without pre-deposit. The Court upheld the Registry's demand for a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax liability, emphasizing the statutory requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the petitioner's arguments and cited precedents, the Court held that the pre-deposit could not be waived to ensure the expeditious resolution of appeals. The Court directed the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the jurisdictional officer confirming the non-adjustment or refund of the debited amount within two months for consideration towards the mandatory deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407718