https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46220 The High Court interfered with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act after considering the petitioners' financial position and the fact that a co-noticee in the same adjudication had been directed to deposit only a lower amount. It held that a reduced deposit would balance the interests of both sides while allowing the appeals to be heard on merits, without expressing any view on the duty demand, confiscation, or penalties. The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs, after which the appeals were to be decided on merits. en-us Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:27:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46220 The High Court interfered with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act after considering the petitioners' financial position and the fact that a co-noticee in the same adjudication had been directed to deposit only a lower amount. It held that a reduced deposit would balance the interests of both sides while allowing the appeals to be heard on merits, without expressing any view on the duty demand, confiscation, or penalties. The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs, after which the appeals were to be decided on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46220