<?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 (12) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95153</link>
    <description>An application seeking rectification of a stay order was held not maintainable under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. A stay order passed on a prima facie assessment while considering waiver of pre-deposit does not amount to a binding determination, and the correction sought did not justify exercise of the Tribunal&#039;s rectification power. The scope of rectification under Section 35C was also found inapplicable to such a stay order, so no interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:52:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95153</link>
      <description>An application seeking rectification of a stay order was held not maintainable under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. A stay order passed on a prima facie assessment while considering waiver of pre-deposit does not amount to a binding determination, and the correction sought did not justify exercise of the Tribunal&#039;s rectification power. The scope of rectification under Section 35C was also found inapplicable to such a stay order, so no interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>