<?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>2014 (5) TMI 871 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247944</link>
    <description>An appeal challenging the Tribunal&#039;s interim order on waiver of pre-deposit was found not to raise any substantial question of law. The HC held that it would not examine the merits of the dispute at the stage of a challenge to the Tribunal&#039;s prima facie view, particularly where conditional waiver had been granted on a preliminary assessment. It also noted that financial hardship had not been raised before either forum. On these facts, the appeal was liable to be dismissed in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 871 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247944</link>
      <description>An appeal challenging the Tribunal&#039;s interim order on waiver of pre-deposit was found not to raise any substantial question of law. The HC held that it would not examine the merits of the dispute at the stage of a challenge to the Tribunal&#039;s prima facie view, particularly where conditional waiver had been granted on a preliminary assessment. It also noted that financial hardship had not been raised before either forum. On these facts, the appeal was liable to be dismissed in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>