<?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 (2) TMI 566 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119445</link>
    <description>Full waiver of pre-deposit was justified where the disputed slag demand appeared prima facie unsustainable on the ground of non-marketability and the issue was already covered by earlier orders and higher forum decisions. The record also showed inconsistent Revenue action on the same question, reinforcing that insistence on deposit was not warranted. On that basis, the stay application was allowed in favour of the assessee and pre-deposit was fully waived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:41:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 566 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119445</link>
      <description>Full waiver of pre-deposit was justified where the disputed slag demand appeared prima facie unsustainable on the ground of non-marketability and the issue was already covered by earlier orders and higher forum decisions. The record also showed inconsistent Revenue action on the same question, reinforcing that insistence on deposit was not warranted. On that basis, the stay application was allowed in favour of the assessee and pre-deposit was fully waived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>