<?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>1994 (5) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43836</link>
    <description>In stay and pre-deposit proceedings, the authority must assess the assessee&#039;s prima facie case on exemption compliance and any pleaded financial hardship before directing deposit of disputed duty; a direction made without that assessment is unsustainable. The authority must also consider whether the extended limitation period can prima facie apply, including whether the record discloses suppression, wilful misstatement, or other statutory grounds. Prior correspondence and partial duty payment were material factors requiring examination. The pre-deposit direction was quashed, and the stay application was remitted for fresh consideration, with liberty to proceed with the appeal if appropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:46:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43836</link>
      <description>In stay and pre-deposit proceedings, the authority must assess the assessee&#039;s prima facie case on exemption compliance and any pleaded financial hardship before directing deposit of disputed duty; a direction made without that assessment is unsustainable. The authority must also consider whether the extended limitation period can prima facie apply, including whether the record discloses suppression, wilful misstatement, or other statutory grounds. Prior correspondence and partial duty payment were material factors requiring examination. The pre-deposit direction was quashed, and the stay application was remitted for fresh consideration, with liberty to proceed with the appeal if appropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>