https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46284 The High Court considered whether it should interfere with an appellate authority's order imposing a deposit as a condition for stay. It found that, after an earlier order was set aside, the authority had passed a detailed order on the basis of the petitioner's submissions and had given reasons for reiterating the deposit condition. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the stay order. It nonetheless granted the petitioner one month to make the deposit and directed the appeal to be disposed of within one month thereafter, with a further opportunity of hearing before the appellate authority. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:14:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46284 The High Court considered whether it should interfere with an appellate authority's order imposing a deposit as a condition for stay. It found that, after an earlier order was set aside, the authority had passed a detailed order on the basis of the petitioner's submissions and had given reasons for reiterating the deposit condition. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the stay order. It nonetheless granted the petitioner one month to make the deposit and directed the appeal to be disposed of within one month thereafter, with a further opportunity of hearing before the appellate authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46284