<?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>1985 (8) TMI 365 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167533</link>
    <description>Dispensation of pre-deposit under Section 35F depends on proof of undue hardship, assessed with reference to the assessee&#039;s overall financial position and the balance of convenience. Liquidity is a relevant factor, but it must be judged by examining current assets, liabilities, cash in hand, bank balances, stock, debtors, and other convertible assets, not cash alone. Where the assets and liquidity position do not justify complete relief, only partial waiver may be granted. In the stated matter, total waiver was refused and the assessee was required to deposit a portion of the disputed duty, while the remaining duty deposit and the penalty deposit were waived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:11:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 365 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167533</link>
      <description>Dispensation of pre-deposit under Section 35F depends on proof of undue hardship, assessed with reference to the assessee&#039;s overall financial position and the balance of convenience. Liquidity is a relevant factor, but it must be judged by examining current assets, liabilities, cash in hand, bank balances, stock, debtors, and other convertible assets, not cash alone. Where the assets and liquidity position do not justify complete relief, only partial waiver may be granted. In the stated matter, total waiver was refused and the assessee was required to deposit a portion of the disputed duty, while the remaining duty deposit and the penalty deposit were waived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>