<?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>1994 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83805</link>
    <description>Conditional waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F was considered where the assessee raised limitation, undervaluation and quantification issues, but no strong prima facie case was made out on limitation because the earlier notice had already been upheld as within the extended period. The undervaluation allegations, including depressed factory-gate pricing, non-disclosure of material facts, related-party pricing and possible sales manipulation, required full examination at the appeal stage and did not justify complete dispensation. However, a grey area remained on duty quantification, particularly whether duty already worked out on depot sales substantially covered the factory-gate element, and that factor supported only a conditional deposit. Complete waiver was therefore declined and the appeal was allowed to proceed subject to deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:48:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83805</link>
      <description>Conditional waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F was considered where the assessee raised limitation, undervaluation and quantification issues, but no strong prima facie case was made out on limitation because the earlier notice had already been upheld as within the extended period. The undervaluation allegations, including depressed factory-gate pricing, non-disclosure of material facts, related-party pricing and possible sales manipulation, required full examination at the appeal stage and did not justify complete dispensation. However, a grey area remained on duty quantification, particularly whether duty already worked out on depot sales substantially covered the factory-gate element, and that factor supported only a conditional deposit. Complete waiver was therefore declined and the appeal was allowed to proceed subject to deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>