https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45278 The commentary explains that, in a Modvat credit dispute arising from an alleged failure to receive inputs or processed goods back within the prescribed period, the appellate authority's discretion under the proviso to Section 35F must be exercised to avoid undue hardship. Where the demand rests on a technical default and the record does not clearly establish the factual basis for denying credit, a heavy pre-deposit is not justified. The article states that the partial waiver was treated as insufficient and that only limited deposits were required, with the balance dispensed with, reflecting a more liberal pre-deposit relief in such circumstances. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:49:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45278 The commentary explains that, in a Modvat credit dispute arising from an alleged failure to receive inputs or processed goods back within the prescribed period, the appellate authority's discretion under the proviso to Section 35F must be exercised to avoid undue hardship. Where the demand rests on a technical default and the record does not clearly establish the factual basis for denying credit, a heavy pre-deposit is not justified. The article states that the partial waiver was treated as insufficient and that only limited deposits were required, with the balance dispensed with, reflecting a more liberal pre-deposit relief in such circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45278