<?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>2000 (7) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93656</link>
    <description>A tribunal&#039;s final order must be implemented within a reasonable time even if no specific deadline was stated, and the pendency of departmental appeals, a reference petition, or a contemplated stay application does not justify delaying compliance. After more than six months had elapsed since its final order, the tribunal treated that period as reasonable for implementation, declined to grant further time, and directed immediate compliance with its order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:42:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93656</link>
      <description>A tribunal&#039;s final order must be implemented within a reasonable time even if no specific deadline was stated, and the pendency of departmental appeals, a reference petition, or a contemplated stay application does not justify delaying compliance. After more than six months had elapsed since its final order, the tribunal treated that period as reasonable for implementation, declined to grant further time, and directed immediate compliance with its order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>