<?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 (9) TMI 380 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216572</link>
    <description>Further pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty was waived in a dispute over denial of exemption, because the disputed amount had already been deposited in escrow and the revenue&#039;s interest was treated as adequately protected. The Tribunal followed the earlier High Court approach and held that no additional pre-deposit should be insisted upon when existing security sufficiently safeguards recovery. Recovery of the disputed sums was therefore stayed during pendency of the appeal, with interim protection granted to the assessee pending regular hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 380 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216572</link>
      <description>Further pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty was waived in a dispute over denial of exemption, because the disputed amount had already been deposited in escrow and the revenue&#039;s interest was treated as adequately protected. The Tribunal followed the earlier High Court approach and held that no additional pre-deposit should be insisted upon when existing security sufficiently safeguards recovery. Recovery of the disputed sums was therefore stayed during pendency of the appeal, with interim protection granted to the assessee pending regular hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>