<?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 (3) TMI 883 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104429</link>
    <description>Section 35G of the Central Excise Act permits a reference to the High Court only from a Tribunal order made under Section 35C. A miscellaneous order that merely recorded compliance with a stay direction and vacated a detention order did not satisfy that statutory precondition, and the pending appeal before the Tribunal did not alter the position. The reference mechanism was therefore unavailable, and the reference application was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:00:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 883 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104429</link>
      <description>Section 35G of the Central Excise Act permits a reference to the High Court only from a Tribunal order made under Section 35C. A miscellaneous order that merely recorded compliance with a stay direction and vacated a detention order did not satisfy that statutory precondition, and the pending appeal before the Tribunal did not alter the position. The reference mechanism was therefore unavailable, and the reference application was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104429</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>