<?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>1992 (7) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43397</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit under the appellate regime must be decided on demonstrated hardship and the assessee&#039;s financial condition, not by a cursory insistence on payment. Where the record showed sick-industry status and substantial accumulated losses, the appellate authority was required to examine the material and make an informed enquiry into assets, liabilities, and the claimed hardship before exercising discretion. A refusal made without such consideration was an improper exercise of discretion and could not stand. The refusal to waive pre-deposit was therefore set aside, and the appeal was to be heard on merits without insisting on the deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:54:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43397</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit under the appellate regime must be decided on demonstrated hardship and the assessee&#039;s financial condition, not by a cursory insistence on payment. Where the record showed sick-industry status and substantial accumulated losses, the appellate authority was required to examine the material and make an informed enquiry into assets, liabilities, and the claimed hardship before exercising discretion. A refusal made without such consideration was an improper exercise of discretion and could not stand. The refusal to waive pre-deposit was therefore set aside, and the appeal was to be heard on merits without insisting on the deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>