<?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 (7) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88923</link>
    <description>Dispensation of pre-deposit for a penalty under Rule 209A was granted because the penalty order did not give adequate reasons showing the applicants&#039; specific role or the ingredients needed to attract the provision. On a prima facie assessment, the record did not disclose a sufficient basis to insist on deposit of the penalty before the appeal could proceed, so the penalty amount was not required to be deposited at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:16:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88923</link>
      <description>Dispensation of pre-deposit for a penalty under Rule 209A was granted because the penalty order did not give adequate reasons showing the applicants&#039; specific role or the ingredients needed to attract the provision. On a prima facie assessment, the record did not disclose a sufficient basis to insist on deposit of the penalty before the appeal could proceed, so the penalty amount was not required to be deposited at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>