<?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>2018 (11) TMI 1516 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371173</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Custom, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s orders regarding pre-deposit conditions for filing appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner&#039;s challenges based on technical hardship and their company&#039;s sick industry status were dismissed. The court emphasized the need for valid reasons to dispense with pre-deposit conditions, considering the conduct of the party. It highlighted instances of fraudulent practices by the petitioner, concluding that discretionary power cannot support companies engaging in criminal activities to evade duty liabilities. The court dismissed both proceedings, citing misuse of legal processes and prolonged avoidance of duty payments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1516 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371173</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Custom, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s orders regarding pre-deposit conditions for filing appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner&#039;s challenges based on technical hardship and their company&#039;s sick industry status were dismissed. The court emphasized the need for valid reasons to dispense with pre-deposit conditions, considering the conduct of the party. It highlighted instances of fraudulent practices by the petitioner, concluding that discretionary power cannot support companies engaging in criminal activities to evade duty liabilities. The court dismissed both proceedings, citing misuse of legal processes and prolonged avoidance of duty payments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>