<?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>2010 (10) TMI 425 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204434</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was declined because the appellant failed to establish financial hardship, as his affidavit and oral statements were inconsistent on material facts and his disclosed income and family assets did not support inability to pay. The Tribunal also found no prima facie case to disturb the Commissioner&#039;s assessable value, which had been fixed by reference to contemporaneous imports and on the lowest comparable value. The natural justice objection was rejected because the affidavit relied on by the department had been specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice, and the appellant had not explained the long delay in filing a reply. Pre-deposit was ordered and full stay refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 425 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204434</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit was declined because the appellant failed to establish financial hardship, as his affidavit and oral statements were inconsistent on material facts and his disclosed income and family assets did not support inability to pay. The Tribunal also found no prima facie case to disturb the Commissioner&#039;s assessable value, which had been fixed by reference to contemporaneous imports and on the lowest comparable value. The natural justice objection was rejected because the affidavit relied on by the department had been specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice, and the appellant had not explained the long delay in filing a reply. Pre-deposit was ordered and full stay refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>