<?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>2009 (4) TMI 583 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125419</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was refused in appeals concerning allegedly wrongly availed Cenvat credit, penalty and interest, because the appellants neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing despite opportunities. The recorded statements and departmental enquiries showing the input suppliers to be bogus remained unrebutted, and the appellants produced no credible material to displace the investigation or establish financial hardship. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s interest was held to require deposit during the pendency of the appeals, and the appellants were directed to deposit the entire demand, including the quantified credit demand and penalty, as a condition to pursue the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:14:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 583 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125419</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was refused in appeals concerning allegedly wrongly availed Cenvat credit, penalty and interest, because the appellants neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing despite opportunities. The recorded statements and departmental enquiries showing the input suppliers to be bogus remained unrebutted, and the appellants produced no credible material to displace the investigation or establish financial hardship. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s interest was held to require deposit during the pendency of the appeals, and the appellants were directed to deposit the entire demand, including the quantified credit demand and penalty, as a condition to pursue the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>