https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45443 Pre-deposit relief under section 35F was not warranted because the assessee failed to show concrete financial incapacity or undue hardship, and the recorded funds position supported the Commissioner (Appeals)' discretion to require deposit. The writ court also held that Regulation 22 of the BIFR framework did not apply on the facts, as no recovery proceedings were shown and the disputed excise dues were not established as part of a sanctioned rehabilitation package. The challenge to the pre-deposit direction therefore failed. en-us Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:39:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45443 Pre-deposit relief under section 35F was not warranted because the assessee failed to show concrete financial incapacity or undue hardship, and the recorded funds position supported the Commissioner (Appeals)' discretion to require deposit. The writ court also held that Regulation 22 of the BIFR framework did not apply on the facts, as no recovery proceedings were shown and the disputed excise dues were not established as part of a sanctioned rehabilitation package. The challenge to the pre-deposit direction therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45443