<?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>2010 (6) TMI 36 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76743</link>
    <description>Dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with a stay-direction deposit was set aside because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly considered the Tribunal&#039;s earlier rulings relied upon by the appellant and had not examined the merits in sufficient detail. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the stay petition and reconsideration on merits after assessing the applicability of the earlier Tribunal decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 36 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76743</link>
      <description>Dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with a stay-direction deposit was set aside because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly considered the Tribunal&#039;s earlier rulings relied upon by the appellant and had not examined the merits in sufficient detail. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the stay petition and reconsideration on merits after assessing the applicability of the earlier Tribunal decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>