https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434945 The court directed the petitioner to deposit 2.5% of the liability instead of the required 7.5% pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal against the original order. The court acknowledged financial constraints due to proceedings under RERA and the inability to set off the pre-deposit obligation against the CENVAT credit refund claim. The appeal was not rejected solely for the lack of the full pre-deposit amount, with the court refraining from commenting on the case's merits. All pending applications were resolved, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised by the petitioner. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Oct 2023 14:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434945 The court directed the petitioner to deposit 2.5% of the liability instead of the required 7.5% pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal against the original order. The court acknowledged financial constraints due to proceedings under RERA and the inability to set off the pre-deposit obligation against the CENVAT credit refund claim. The appeal was not rejected solely for the lack of the full pre-deposit amount, with the court refraining from commenting on the case's merits. All pending applications were resolved, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised by the petitioner. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434945