<?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>2005 (7) TMI 482 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116401</link>
    <description>CESTAT granted full interim relief in a dispute over cutting and slitting jumbo rolls into paper rolls, holding that the applicants had made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The record showed that the activity had long been within Revenue&#039;s knowledge, declarations had been filed, and earlier correspondence treated the goods as stationery, so insistence on full pre-deposit was not justified at the stay stage. The tribunal also found that suppression of facts and prima facie invocation of the extended period of limitation were not established on the available material, and the appeal was directed to proceed for further hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 482 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116401</link>
      <description>CESTAT granted full interim relief in a dispute over cutting and slitting jumbo rolls into paper rolls, holding that the applicants had made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The record showed that the activity had long been within Revenue&#039;s knowledge, declarations had been filed, and earlier correspondence treated the goods as stationery, so insistence on full pre-deposit was not justified at the stay stage. The tribunal also found that suppression of facts and prima facie invocation of the extended period of limitation were not established on the available material, and the appeal was directed to proceed for further hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>