<?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>2016 (9) TMI 76 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331815</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Appellants were required to pay an additional 10% deposit under Section 35F(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 129E(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, in addition to the 7.5% deposit made before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the Appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the deposit requirements under the respective Acts. This judgment clarifies the deposit requirements for filing Appeals before CESTAT, emphasizing the need for Appellants to adhere to the specified deposit percentages as mandated by the legislation, even if there are differing interpretations based on circulars.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 76 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331815</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Appellants were required to pay an additional 10% deposit under Section 35F(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 129E(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, in addition to the 7.5% deposit made before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the Appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the deposit requirements under the respective Acts. This judgment clarifies the deposit requirements for filing Appeals before CESTAT, emphasizing the need for Appellants to adhere to the specified deposit percentages as mandated by the legislation, even if there are differing interpretations based on circulars.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>