https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44868 Filing of an appeal and stay application does not, by itself, bar recovery or justify quashing a detention order. The appellate authority retains statutory discretion under the pre-deposit framework to consider waiver on proof of undue hardship, and interference is warranted only where there is inordinate, unexplained delay or a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. On the facts, no material showed that the stay application had been declined or left pending unreasonably. The request to quash the detention order was rejected, but the appellate authority was directed to decide the interim application expeditiously. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:59:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44868 Filing of an appeal and stay application does not, by itself, bar recovery or justify quashing a detention order. The appellate authority retains statutory discretion under the pre-deposit framework to consider waiver on proof of undue hardship, and interference is warranted only where there is inordinate, unexplained delay or a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. On the facts, no material showed that the stay application had been declined or left pending unreasonably. The request to quash the detention order was rejected, but the appellate authority was directed to decide the interim application expeditiously. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44868