<?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>2003 (1) TMI 503 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107460</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act was refused where the assessee claimed closure of business, sickness before BIFR and financial hardship, but produced no order showing BIFR sickness. The liability had arisen from a final re-fixation of annual capacity, and mere assertions of losses or closure were held insufficient to justify dispensation of the statutory deposit requirement. The appellant was therefore directed to deposit the entire duty amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:32:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 503 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107460</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act was refused where the assessee claimed closure of business, sickness before BIFR and financial hardship, but produced no order showing BIFR sickness. The liability had arisen from a final re-fixation of annual capacity, and mere assertions of losses or closure were held insufficient to justify dispensation of the statutory deposit requirement. The appellant was therefore directed to deposit the entire duty amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>