<?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>2021 (3) TMI 280 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404952</link>
    <description>A subsequent authoritative ruling supporting the assessee on classification provided a strong prima facie basis against insisting on pre-deposit. In these circumstances, the pre-deposit order, the refusal to modify it, and the consequential dismissal of the appeal for noncompliance were set aside. The Tribunal was directed to restore the appeal and decide it on merits without requiring any deposit, leaving the substantive questions open except on the pre-deposit issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 280 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404952</link>
      <description>A subsequent authoritative ruling supporting the assessee on classification provided a strong prima facie basis against insisting on pre-deposit. In these circumstances, the pre-deposit order, the refusal to modify it, and the consequential dismissal of the appeal for noncompliance were set aside. The Tribunal was directed to restore the appeal and decide it on merits without requiring any deposit, leaving the substantive questions open except on the pre-deposit issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>