https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48329 The court upheld the requirement for the appellant to deposit Rs. 8.00 lakhs as ordered by the single Judge, granting an additional 15 days for compliance. The court stressed the importance of safeguarding revenue interests and highlighted the necessity of pre-deposit unless undue hardship is proven. The appellant's arguments of financial hardship were dismissed, emphasizing the absence of undue hardship or financial constraints. The court's decision aimed to balance revenue protection with providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to appeal. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48329 The court upheld the requirement for the appellant to deposit Rs. 8.00 lakhs as ordered by the single Judge, granting an additional 15 days for compliance. The court stressed the importance of safeguarding revenue interests and highlighted the necessity of pre-deposit unless undue hardship is proven. The appellant's arguments of financial hardship were dismissed, emphasizing the absence of undue hardship or financial constraints. The court's decision aimed to balance revenue protection with providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to appeal. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48329