https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44984 Where the Supreme Court had already held that white cement with rapid hardening properties falls under Heading 2502.20 rather than the residuary entry, insistence on pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises Act was treated as unjustified when it would cause undue hardship. The petitioner had already discharged duty at the claimed rate and a substantial part of the differential demand had been recovered, so the demand was substantially secured. In that setting, the Tribunal could not refuse to modify its interim order merely because the Supreme Court ruling came later, and the pre-deposit requirement was held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:30:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44984 Where the Supreme Court had already held that white cement with rapid hardening properties falls under Heading 2502.20 rather than the residuary entry, insistence on pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises Act was treated as unjustified when it would cause undue hardship. The petitioner had already discharged duty at the claimed rate and a substantial part of the differential demand had been recovered, so the demand was substantially secured. In that setting, the Tribunal could not refuse to modify its interim order merely because the Supreme Court ruling came later, and the pre-deposit requirement was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44984