<?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>1990 (7) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80810</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the applicants, dispensing with the pre-deposit requirement of duty amount demanded from them. The Tribunal found no mala fides on the applicants&#039; part regarding the alleged suppression of gross profit in the price list. It held that the applicants had a strong case on merits and would face undue hardship if required to make the pre-deposit, ultimately ruling in their favor and staying the recovery of the amount until the case&#039;s final disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:26:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80810</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the applicants, dispensing with the pre-deposit requirement of duty amount demanded from them. The Tribunal found no mala fides on the applicants&#039; part regarding the alleged suppression of gross profit in the price list. It held that the applicants had a strong case on merits and would face undue hardship if required to make the pre-deposit, ultimately ruling in their favor and staying the recovery of the amount until the case&#039;s final disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>