<?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 (12) TMI 458 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166442</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted the applicant&#039;s request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,07,46,905 under exemption notifications. Despite the Revenue&#039;s argument that the applicant did not use indelible ink for marking prices, the Tribunal found substantial compliance with the notification&#039;s condition. Noting the absence of evidence of selling goods at higher prices, the Tribunal relied on previous decisions to support its ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement, stayed the recovery, and allowed the stay petition, emphasizing the applicant&#039;s strong prima facie case and substantial compliance with the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:10:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 458 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166442</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted the applicant&#039;s request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,07,46,905 under exemption notifications. Despite the Revenue&#039;s argument that the applicant did not use indelible ink for marking prices, the Tribunal found substantial compliance with the notification&#039;s condition. Noting the absence of evidence of selling goods at higher prices, the Tribunal relied on previous decisions to support its ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement, stayed the recovery, and allowed the stay petition, emphasizing the applicant&#039;s strong prima facie case and substantial compliance with the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>