https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44379 The court quashed the order passed by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to pay a substantial amount immediately. The court found that the petitioner's request for an adjournment was genuine and that undue hardship was caused by the demanded deposit. The court held that justice required the petitioner to have the opportunity to present its case effectively. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the first respondent was instructed to conduct a fresh hearing within four weeks and make decisions based on merits and the law. No costs were awarded, and no order was deemed necessary for a related application. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:32:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44379 The court quashed the order passed by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to pay a substantial amount immediately. The court found that the petitioner's request for an adjournment was genuine and that undue hardship was caused by the demanded deposit. The court held that justice required the petitioner to have the opportunity to present its case effectively. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the first respondent was instructed to conduct a fresh hearing within four weeks and make decisions based on merits and the law. No costs were awarded, and no order was deemed necessary for a related application. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44379