<?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>2011 (3) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204823</link>
    <description>Pre-deposit for hearing an excise appeal under Section 35F was reduced because the Court found the original requirement to deposit the entire service tax amount unduly onerous and insufficiently responsive to the petitioner&#039;s financial hardship. On the material before it, the Court held that hardship had not been duly considered when fixing the condition. The pre-deposit was therefore modified to 30% of the service tax amount, and the appeal was directed to be heard and decided on merits after compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204823</link>
      <description>Pre-deposit for hearing an excise appeal under Section 35F was reduced because the Court found the original requirement to deposit the entire service tax amount unduly onerous and insufficiently responsive to the petitioner&#039;s financial hardship. On the material before it, the Court held that hardship had not been duly considered when fixing the condition. The pre-deposit was therefore modified to 30% of the service tax amount, and the appeal was directed to be heard and decided on merits after compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>