https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47292 In an appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, the appellate authority had to consider the appellant's individual financial hardship before insisting on full pre-deposit under Section 35F. Where the petitioner's separate hardship was not examined, refusal of stay risked loss of the appeal right and justified judicial interference. The court did not assess the merits of the underlying duty liability, as the appeal was still pending. Relief was granted against dismissal for non-compliance, and the appellate authority was directed not to dismiss the appeal if one-half of the duty demand was deposited within the stipulated time. en-us Mon, 04 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:20:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47292 In an appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, the appellate authority had to consider the appellant's individual financial hardship before insisting on full pre-deposit under Section 35F. Where the petitioner's separate hardship was not examined, refusal of stay risked loss of the appeal right and justified judicial interference. The court did not assess the merits of the underlying duty liability, as the appeal was still pending. Relief was granted against dismissal for non-compliance, and the appellate authority was directed not to dismiss the appeal if one-half of the duty demand was deposited within the stipulated time. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47292