<?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 (11) TMI 864 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99295</link>
    <description>A Tribunal refund direction remains operative and binding unless a superior court grants a stay. The absence of any stay order meant the revenue could not treat a proposed writ petition as suspending the Tribunal&#039;s mandate, and mere intention to challenge the order did not excuse compliance. The Commissioner was therefore required to give effect to the refund direction forthwith, with the order continuing to be enforceable until stayed by a higher forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:07:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 864 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99295</link>
      <description>A Tribunal refund direction remains operative and binding unless a superior court grants a stay. The absence of any stay order meant the revenue could not treat a proposed writ petition as suspending the Tribunal&#039;s mandate, and mere intention to challenge the order did not excuse compliance. The Commissioner was therefore required to give effect to the refund direction forthwith, with the order continuing to be enforceable until stayed by a higher forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>