<?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>2008 (12) TMI 471 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124858</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, decided in favor of the appellant, remanding the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) without requiring any pre-deposit of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders, but upon review, it was found that the pre-deposit of duty should have been waived. The appellant&#039;s strong case on merits led to the decision in their favor, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing without insisting on pre-deposit requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:31:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 471 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124858</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, decided in favor of the appellant, remanding the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) without requiring any pre-deposit of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders, but upon review, it was found that the pre-deposit of duty should have been waived. The appellant&#039;s strong case on merits led to the decision in their favor, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing without insisting on pre-deposit requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>