https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45848 Section 35F requires the appellate authority to consider both the prima facie merits of the appeal and the hardship likely to result from insisting on deposit before directing pre-deposit. On the stated facts, the prior remand for de novo consideration and the practical condonation of delay under Rule 57G(5) were relevant factors that were not properly addressed in the stay orders. As the orders did not reflect adequate application of mind to merits and undue hardship, insistence on pre-deposit was held unjustified and the matter was to be heard without such deposit. en-us Thu, 04 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:58:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45848 Section 35F requires the appellate authority to consider both the prima facie merits of the appeal and the hardship likely to result from insisting on deposit before directing pre-deposit. On the stated facts, the prior remand for de novo consideration and the practical condonation of delay under Rule 57G(5) were relevant factors that were not properly addressed in the stay orders. As the orders did not reflect adequate application of mind to merits and undue hardship, insistence on pre-deposit was held unjustified and the matter was to be heard without such deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45848