https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45347 Under the Central Excise pre-deposit regime, failure to comply with the statutory deposit condition meant the appeals were not treated as admitted and pending for purposes of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, so the assessees could not claim its benefit. A conditional remand order requiring prior proof of deposit did not revive the appeals or keep the dispute alive under the Scheme because the condition was not fulfilled. The operative principle is that a settlement scheme cannot be invoked where the underlying appellate proceeding has ceased to be pending due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. en-us Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:23:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45347 Under the Central Excise pre-deposit regime, failure to comply with the statutory deposit condition meant the appeals were not treated as admitted and pending for purposes of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, so the assessees could not claim its benefit. A conditional remand order requiring prior proof of deposit did not revive the appeals or keep the dispute alive under the Scheme because the condition was not fulfilled. The operative principle is that a settlement scheme cannot be invoked where the underlying appellate proceeding has ceased to be pending due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45347