<?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>2000 (11) TMI 161 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46473</link>
    <description>Section 35F pre-deposit relief turns on whether the required deposit would cause undue hardship while still protecting revenue, and undue hardship means more than ordinary inconvenience. A sick company status under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not by itself justify waiver. On the financial materials, including sales and cash flow, the assessee did not show that the directed deposit would be disproportionate or oppressive. Reference to Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not change the stay position, and the pre-deposit direction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:14:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 161 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46473</link>
      <description>Section 35F pre-deposit relief turns on whether the required deposit would cause undue hardship while still protecting revenue, and undue hardship means more than ordinary inconvenience. A sick company status under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not by itself justify waiver. On the financial materials, including sales and cash flow, the assessee did not show that the directed deposit would be disproportionate or oppressive. Reference to Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not change the stay position, and the pre-deposit direction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>