<?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>1996 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85104</link>
    <description>The Tribunal deferred the decision on the dismissal of the appeals due to non-renewal of Bank Guarantees, pending clarification from the Delhi High Court. The appellants argued that the Guarantees were valid until a later date as per their terms, despite not being technically renewed. The Revenue contended that non-renewal automatically led to dismissal, emphasizing the distinction between validity and enforcement periods. The Tribunal acknowledged the Guarantees were initially accepted and renewed, advising the appellants to seek direction from the High Court. Compliance with court orders was emphasized, and the hearing was adjourned for clarification on the renewal of Guarantees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:26:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85104</link>
      <description>The Tribunal deferred the decision on the dismissal of the appeals due to non-renewal of Bank Guarantees, pending clarification from the Delhi High Court. The appellants argued that the Guarantees were valid until a later date as per their terms, despite not being technically renewed. The Revenue contended that non-renewal automatically led to dismissal, emphasizing the distinction between validity and enforcement periods. The Tribunal acknowledged the Guarantees were initially accepted and renewed, advising the appellants to seek direction from the High Court. Compliance with court orders was emphasized, and the hearing was adjourned for clarification on the renewal of Guarantees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>