<?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>2006 (6) TMI 293 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118310</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was warranted at the stay stage because the disputed amount had already been adjusted against the demand and the demand itself had been set aside. On that basis, the appellants were found to have a strong prima facie case for interim relief, and the Revenue&#039;s reliance on Section 93 of the Finance Act did not defeat that relief. The entire pre-deposit was waived, and the stay application was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:52:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 293 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118310</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was warranted at the stay stage because the disputed amount had already been adjusted against the demand and the demand itself had been set aside. On that basis, the appellants were found to have a strong prima facie case for interim relief, and the Revenue&#039;s reliance on Section 93 of the Finance Act did not defeat that relief. The entire pre-deposit was waived, and the stay application was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>