Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
