<?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>1975 (8) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40725</link>
    <description>An appeal under Section 128 read with Section 129(1) of the Customs Act is entertainable even where penalty has not yet been deposited, because the provision contemplates deposit during the pendency of the appeal, subject to discretionary waiver for undue hardship. Where waiver is refused, the appellant must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the deposit requirement before the appeal can be dismissed for non-compliance. Immediate dismissal after refusal of waiver is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The impugned appellate and revisional orders were quashed, and time was granted to deposit the penalty, after which the appeal was to be restored and decided according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 18:33:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (8) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40725</link>
      <description>An appeal under Section 128 read with Section 129(1) of the Customs Act is entertainable even where penalty has not yet been deposited, because the provision contemplates deposit during the pendency of the appeal, subject to discretionary waiver for undue hardship. Where waiver is refused, the appellant must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the deposit requirement before the appeal can be dismissed for non-compliance. Immediate dismissal after refusal of waiver is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The impugned appellate and revisional orders were quashed, and time was granted to deposit the penalty, after which the appeal was to be restored and decided according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>