<?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 30 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43917</link>
    <description>Under Section 35F, waiver of pre-deposit turns on a judicial assessment of prima facie case and financial hardship. The note explains that where the duty demand raises substantial questions on limitation, clubbing of units, and exemption under Notification No. 175/86, the appellate authority must consider the merits and the pleaded hardship before insisting on cash deposit. In the discussed matter, the direction to deposit part of the demand in cash was treated as lacking sound judicial basis and as overlooking the prima facie merits to some extent, so the pre-deposit condition was modified and bank guarantee was accepted instead of cash deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:34:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43917</link>
      <description>Under Section 35F, waiver of pre-deposit turns on a judicial assessment of prima facie case and financial hardship. The note explains that where the duty demand raises substantial questions on limitation, clubbing of units, and exemption under Notification No. 175/86, the appellate authority must consider the merits and the pleaded hardship before insisting on cash deposit. In the discussed matter, the direction to deposit part of the demand in cash was treated as lacking sound judicial basis and as overlooking the prima facie merits to some extent, so the pre-deposit condition was modified and bank guarantee was accepted instead of cash deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>