<?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>2004 (7) TMI 407 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112205</link>
    <description>In a dispute over late payment of central excise duty under the compounded levy scheme, the Tribunal considered whether the appellant had shown a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and whether financial hardship justified relief. The delay in payment was undisputed, and the Tribunal noted that the statutory framework under the Central Excise Rules supported imposition of penalty for delayed payment. It also found that the financial material did not establish undue hardship, as the appellant had earned income and the carried-forward loss was limited. Complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore declined, and partial deposit was directed with balance stay on compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:11:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 407 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112205</link>
      <description>In a dispute over late payment of central excise duty under the compounded levy scheme, the Tribunal considered whether the appellant had shown a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and whether financial hardship justified relief. The delay in payment was undisputed, and the Tribunal noted that the statutory framework under the Central Excise Rules supported imposition of penalty for delayed payment. It also found that the financial material did not establish undue hardship, as the appellant had earned income and the carried-forward loss was limited. Complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore declined, and partial deposit was directed with balance stay on compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>