<?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 (8) TMI 34 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77946</link>
    <description>The earlier waiver of pre-deposit was modified after repeated adjournment requests were found unsatisfactory and an earlier adjournment lacked recorded reasons. Because the appeal had been delayed in prosecution, the stay arrangement was altered and the appellants were directed to deposit the balance amount within four weeks. Compliance with that deposit direction was made a condition precedent for the appeal being taken up for regular hearing before CESTAT.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 34 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77946</link>
      <description>The earlier waiver of pre-deposit was modified after repeated adjournment requests were found unsatisfactory and an earlier adjournment lacked recorded reasons. Because the appeal had been delayed in prosecution, the stay arrangement was altered and the appellants were directed to deposit the balance amount within four weeks. Compliance with that deposit direction was made a condition precedent for the appeal being taken up for regular hearing before CESTAT.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>