<?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 (10) TMI 191 - CEGAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80910</link>
    <description>Non-maintenance of statutory records and failure to follow the prescribed excise procedure, including non-intimation to the department, left the Department with a stronger prima facie case against the applicants. The plea of absence of mala fides did not outweigh those compliance defaults, and the claim of financial hardship was not pressed. On that basis, stay of recovery was refused and the stay application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:06:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 191 - CEGAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80910</link>
      <description>Non-maintenance of statutory records and failure to follow the prescribed excise procedure, including non-intimation to the department, left the Department with a stronger prima facie case against the applicants. The plea of absence of mala fides did not outweigh those compliance defaults, and the claim of financial hardship was not pressed. On that basis, stay of recovery was refused and the stay application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>