<?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>2012 (8) TMI 721 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216046</link>
    <description>Co-noticees sought dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty where the main noticee had settled the duty dispute before the Settlement Commission and obtained immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution. The Tribunal had ordered deposit of 25% of the penalties without addressing whether any penalty could survive against the co-noticees after the principal noticee&#039;s settlement. The Court noted that the appellants could not themselves approach the Settlement Commission and that Tribunal Benches had treated such co-noticees as not warranting penalty in similar circumstances. On that basis, it found a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and directed the appeals to be heard without insisting on the deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 721 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216046</link>
      <description>Co-noticees sought dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty where the main noticee had settled the duty dispute before the Settlement Commission and obtained immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution. The Tribunal had ordered deposit of 25% of the penalties without addressing whether any penalty could survive against the co-noticees after the principal noticee&#039;s settlement. The Court noted that the appellants could not themselves approach the Settlement Commission and that Tribunal Benches had treated such co-noticees as not warranting penalty in similar circumstances. On that basis, it found a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and directed the appeals to be heard without insisting on the deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>