<?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>1997 (12) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87473</link>
    <description>In a stay application before CEGAT, the Tribunal declined total dispensation of penalty because the appellants did not establish a prima facie case for full waiver. It also noted that the valuation adopted for saffron was not supported by evidence and that the plea of financial hardship was unsubstantiated. Balancing these factors, the Tribunal ordered a partial pre-deposit and granted stay of recovery of the balance demand on compliance with the deposit condition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:23:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87473</link>
      <description>In a stay application before CEGAT, the Tribunal declined total dispensation of penalty because the appellants did not establish a prima facie case for full waiver. It also noted that the valuation adopted for saffron was not supported by evidence and that the plea of financial hardship was unsubstantiated. Balancing these factors, the Tribunal ordered a partial pre-deposit and granted stay of recovery of the balance demand on compliance with the deposit condition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>