<?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 (5) TMI 652 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125495</link>
    <description>A waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 operates as a stay on recovery of the balance demand once the stipulated condition is complied with. Because the Tribunal&#039;s pre-deposit condition had been satisfied, the departmental direction requiring deposit of the disputed amount was inconsistent with the subsisting stay order. The direction was therefore quashed, and recovery of the stayed demand could not be pursued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:55:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 652 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125495</link>
      <description>A waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 operates as a stay on recovery of the balance demand once the stipulated condition is complied with. Because the Tribunal&#039;s pre-deposit condition had been satisfied, the departmental direction requiring deposit of the disputed amount was inconsistent with the subsisting stay order. The direction was therefore quashed, and recovery of the stayed demand could not be pursued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>