<?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>2002 (4) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46321</link>
    <description>High Court declined to interfere with CEGAT&#039;s discretionary refusal to grant a complete waiver of pre-deposit, noting that the tribunal had considered the petitioners&#039; financial hardship and reduced the deposit from the original demand to a lower amount. The Court distinguished the relied-upon sick-industry precedent as factually inapplicable and left the tribunal&#039;s assessment undisturbed. On inspection of documents, the Court held that the petitioners, already before CEGAT, may apply there for inspection or production of any records needed for their defence, and it did not order independent production itself.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:38:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46321</link>
      <description>High Court declined to interfere with CEGAT&#039;s discretionary refusal to grant a complete waiver of pre-deposit, noting that the tribunal had considered the petitioners&#039; financial hardship and reduced the deposit from the original demand to a lower amount. The Court distinguished the relied-upon sick-industry precedent as factually inapplicable and left the tribunal&#039;s assessment undisturbed. On inspection of documents, the Court held that the petitioners, already before CEGAT, may apply there for inspection or production of any records needed for their defence, and it did not order independent production itself.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>