<?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>2004 (4) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47258</link>
    <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 protects a sick industrial company from coercive recovery in respect of dues arising before registration of its reference before the BIFR. That protection extends to the impugned pre-deposit requirement for past excise duty demands, making such insistence unsustainable. The protection does not, however, exempt the company from paying current excise duty accruing after registration of the reference. The Gujarat High Court therefore quashed the pre-deposit order and directed that the appeals be heard without pre-deposit, while the company remained liable for current statutory dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:07:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47258</link>
      <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 protects a sick industrial company from coercive recovery in respect of dues arising before registration of its reference before the BIFR. That protection extends to the impugned pre-deposit requirement for past excise duty demands, making such insistence unsustainable. The protection does not, however, exempt the company from paying current excise duty accruing after registration of the reference. The Gujarat High Court therefore quashed the pre-deposit order and directed that the appeals be heard without pre-deposit, while the company remained liable for current statutory dues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>