<?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 (11) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43587</link>
    <description>Section 35F pre-deposit discretion is not limited to financial hardship; it must also reflect whether a prima facie case exists. Where conflicting views of two High Courts indicate a plausible case in favour of the appellant, insisting on deposit of the duty amount is arbitrary and unsupported by sound principles. The pre-deposit condition was therefore dispensed with, and the appeal was to be heard without requiring payment of the duty amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:54:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43587</link>
      <description>Section 35F pre-deposit discretion is not limited to financial hardship; it must also reflect whether a prima facie case exists. Where conflicting views of two High Courts indicate a plausible case in favour of the appellant, insisting on deposit of the duty amount is arbitrary and unsupported by sound principles. The pre-deposit condition was therefore dispensed with, and the appeal was to be heard without requiring payment of the duty amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>