<?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>1988 (5) TMI 130 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73699</link>
    <description>Interlocutory stay orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) without disposing of the underlying appeal were held not to be appealable to the Tribunal under Section 80A of the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal treated such stay orders as not amounting to appealable orders within the statutory scheme, so the appeals were not maintainable in law. As the principal appeals were incompetent, the connected stay applications also ceased to survive and were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:17:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 130 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73699</link>
      <description>Interlocutory stay orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) without disposing of the underlying appeal were held not to be appealable to the Tribunal under Section 80A of the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal treated such stay orders as not amounting to appealable orders within the statutory scheme, so the appeals were not maintainable in law. As the principal appeals were incompetent, the connected stay applications also ceased to survive and were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>