<?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 (2) TMI 622 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114258</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was found where the appellant showed an arguable challenge to the duty demand. The Tribunal noted that distributors and an industrial buyer could not be treated as the same class for adopting the highest price, and that the duty already paid may have exceeded the liability. On that basis, pre-deposit was waived, recovery of the demand was stayed, and the appeal was listed for hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 12:27:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 622 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114258</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was found where the appellant showed an arguable challenge to the duty demand. The Tribunal noted that distributors and an industrial buyer could not be treated as the same class for adopting the highest price, and that the duty already paid may have exceeded the liability. On that basis, pre-deposit was waived, recovery of the demand was stayed, and the appeal was listed for hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>