Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 10 crore for filing an appeal before the CESTAT u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court held that it lacked discretion to grant a waiver or reduction in the pre-deposit amount, as it would be contrary to the legislative intent. The petitioner was directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT. The court observed that while considering a waiver, it must examine if the petitioner has a prima facie case likely to succeed, indicating no gross injustice, excessive demand contrary to facts, or perverse orders, coupled with blameless conduct. However, after examining the facts, the court found no merit to grant a waiver and dismissed the petition.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 10 crore for filing an appeal before the CESTAT u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court held that it lacked discretion to grant a waiver or reduction in the pre-deposit amount, as it would be contrary to the legislative intent. The petitioner was directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT. The court observed that while considering a waiver, it must examine if the petitioner has a prima facie case likely to succeed, indicating no gross injustice, excessive demand contrary to facts, or perverse orders, coupled with blameless conduct. However, after examining the facts, the court found no merit to grant a waiver and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
