<?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>1998 (1) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87940</link>
    <description>In a stay application on pre-deposit of duty, the question was whether the appellant had to deposit duty pending appeal, in light of the exclusion category under Rule 57A and the nature of the claimed inputs. The matter was treated as requiring detailed examination at the appeal stage, but as arguable for limited stay purposes. Partial pre-deposit was therefore directed, and recovery of the balance duty was stayed during the appeal on compliance with the deposit condition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:53:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87940</link>
      <description>In a stay application on pre-deposit of duty, the question was whether the appellant had to deposit duty pending appeal, in light of the exclusion category under Rule 57A and the nature of the claimed inputs. The matter was treated as requiring detailed examination at the appeal stage, but as arguable for limited stay purposes. Partial pre-deposit was therefore directed, and recovery of the balance duty was stayed during the appeal on compliance with the deposit condition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>