<?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>1996 (3) TMI 140 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44453</link>
    <description>Plastic crates used to transport bottled aerated beverages were considered prima facie capable of being treated as packaging material for Modvat credit, with the amended exclusion for crates and glass bottles noted as relevant to the credit claim. The Court also accepted that the assessee had shown financial hardship through material indicating bank finance burden, supplier liabilities and business pressures, justifying dispensation of pre-deposit. On that basis, the stay rejection was set aside and the appeal was allowed to proceed without pre-deposit, leaving the merits to be decided by the appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:35:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 140 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44453</link>
      <description>Plastic crates used to transport bottled aerated beverages were considered prima facie capable of being treated as packaging material for Modvat credit, with the amended exclusion for crates and glass bottles noted as relevant to the credit claim. The Court also accepted that the assessee had shown financial hardship through material indicating bank finance burden, supplier liabilities and business pressures, justifying dispensation of pre-deposit. On that basis, the stay rejection was set aside and the appeal was allowed to proceed without pre-deposit, leaving the merits to be decided by the appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>