<?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 (4) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43684</link>
    <description>Under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, waiver of pre-deposit depends on whether the appellant shows undue hardship through a substantial prima facie case and whether dispensing with deposit would imperil revenue. The text states that the assessee established a strong prima facie case on common use of refinery gas and LSHS within integrated units under common management, common control, common utilities, a common factory licence, and an approved factory plan. As no material showed prejudice to revenue and an undertaking was already in place, refusal to dispense with pre-deposit was held to be an improper exercise of discretion and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43684</link>
      <description>Under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, waiver of pre-deposit depends on whether the appellant shows undue hardship through a substantial prima facie case and whether dispensing with deposit would imperil revenue. The text states that the assessee established a strong prima facie case on common use of refinery gas and LSHS within integrated units under common management, common control, common utilities, a common factory licence, and an approved factory plan. As no material showed prejudice to revenue and an undertaking was already in place, refusal to dispense with pre-deposit was held to be an improper exercise of discretion and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>