<?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>1986 (4) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72336</link>
    <description>A statutory deeming provision that requires a departmental application to be heard as if it were an appeal, and applies the appellate provisions of the Act so far as may be, was read to extend to the further appellate stage as well; the Tribunal therefore treated an appeal under Section 35B as maintainable against the Collector (Appeals)&#039; order. The contrary view was rejected as creating an anomaly and cutting off the connected appellate chain without clear legislative exclusion. Interim relief was declined because the demand was relatively small, the applicants showed adequate financial capacity, and the asserted time-bar was not established at the stay stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 16:23:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72336</link>
      <description>A statutory deeming provision that requires a departmental application to be heard as if it were an appeal, and applies the appellate provisions of the Act so far as may be, was read to extend to the further appellate stage as well; the Tribunal therefore treated an appeal under Section 35B as maintainable against the Collector (Appeals)&#039; order. The contrary view was rejected as creating an anomaly and cutting off the connected appellate chain without clear legislative exclusion. Interim relief was declined because the demand was relatively small, the applicants showed adequate financial capacity, and the asserted time-bar was not established at the stay stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>