<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (2) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72196</link>
    <description>Section 129E pre-deposit relief depends on a bona fide showing of undue hardship and genuine, unforeseen financial change; mere asserted liquidity stress, without full disclosure of banking position or a credible change in circumstances, is insufficient, so the Tribunal may insist on cash deposit. Prior bond and guarantee arrangements do not override the statutory duty pre-deposit requirement, and redemption fine is treated as a separate matter arising from confiscation, so those securities do not justify deletion of the cash-deposit condition. The modification request was rejected and the earlier pre-deposit order was left undisturbed, with time allowed only for compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2011 11:50:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72196</link>
      <description>Section 129E pre-deposit relief depends on a bona fide showing of undue hardship and genuine, unforeseen financial change; mere asserted liquidity stress, without full disclosure of banking position or a credible change in circumstances, is insufficient, so the Tribunal may insist on cash deposit. Prior bond and guarantee arrangements do not override the statutory duty pre-deposit requirement, and redemption fine is treated as a separate matter arising from confiscation, so those securities do not justify deletion of the cash-deposit condition. The modification request was rejected and the earlier pre-deposit order was left undisturbed, with time allowed only for compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>