<?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>1987 (9) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73262</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected the appeal due to the appellants&#039; non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excises &amp;amp; Salt Act, 1944 and the conditions of Stay Order No. 224/85-C. The appellants failed to deposit the duty demanded pending appeal, as required by law, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. Despite arguments based on a notification, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with Section 35F and upheld the rejection of the appeal. Compliance with deposit requirements pending appeal was deemed crucial, and the failure to adhere to such requirements resulted in the unfavorable outcome for the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 16:30:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73262</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi rejected the appeal due to the appellants&#039; non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excises &amp;amp; Salt Act, 1944 and the conditions of Stay Order No. 224/85-C. The appellants failed to deposit the duty demanded pending appeal, as required by law, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. Despite arguments based on a notification, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with Section 35F and upheld the rejection of the appeal. Compliance with deposit requirements pending appeal was deemed crucial, and the failure to adhere to such requirements resulted in the unfavorable outcome for the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>