<?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 (3) TMI 348 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246400</link>
    <description>Unconditional waiver of pre-deposit was considered appropriate where the dispute on denial of concessional benefit under Notification No. 4/2006-Central Excise was prima facie covered by an earlier Tribunal ruling on pari materia exemption language. The earlier interpretation was treated as governing the stay request, while reliance on a different small-scale exemption notification and the factual distinction drawn by the Commissioner (Appeals) was found unpersuasive for interim purposes. On that basis, the record disclosed no proper factual foundation for an adverse inference against the appellant, and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:13:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 348 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246400</link>
      <description>Unconditional waiver of pre-deposit was considered appropriate where the dispute on denial of concessional benefit under Notification No. 4/2006-Central Excise was prima facie covered by an earlier Tribunal ruling on pari materia exemption language. The earlier interpretation was treated as governing the stay request, while reliance on a different small-scale exemption notification and the factual distinction drawn by the Commissioner (Appeals) was found unpersuasive for interim purposes. On that basis, the record disclosed no proper factual foundation for an adverse inference against the appellant, and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>