<?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>1992 (12) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82285</link>
    <description>A duly filed Modvat declaration may still support interim relief where later deletion of some input entries is shown to be an inadvertent technical lapse rather than a complete absence of declaration. The majority treated departmental acknowledgment, supporting documents, and continued use and movement of inputs as evidence of substantial compliance, and relied on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and hardship to grant waiver of the balance pre-deposit and stay recovery pending appeal. The already deposited amount was also considered in deciding the remaining pre-deposit. A dissenting view found no sufficient prima facie case or hardship and would have refused the stay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:17:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82285</link>
      <description>A duly filed Modvat declaration may still support interim relief where later deletion of some input entries is shown to be an inadvertent technical lapse rather than a complete absence of declaration. The majority treated departmental acknowledgment, supporting documents, and continued use and movement of inputs as evidence of substantial compliance, and relied on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and hardship to grant waiver of the balance pre-deposit and stay recovery pending appeal. The already deposited amount was also considered in deciding the remaining pre-deposit. A dissenting view found no sufficient prima facie case or hardship and would have refused the stay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>