<?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>2002 (9) TMI 618 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106736</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied the Revenue&#039;s application for a stay on the Final Order directing a refund to the Respondents. Despite the pending reference before the High Court, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to grant a stay, citing previous unsuccessful challenges by the Revenue and the Apex Court&#039;s decision supporting the refund. The Tribunal emphasized that any potential hardship to the Revenue could be addressed through subsequent legal proceedings, leading to the rejection of the stay application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:47:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 618 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106736</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied the Revenue&#039;s application for a stay on the Final Order directing a refund to the Respondents. Despite the pending reference before the High Court, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to grant a stay, citing previous unsuccessful challenges by the Revenue and the Apex Court&#039;s decision supporting the refund. The Tribunal emphasized that any potential hardship to the Revenue could be addressed through subsequent legal proceedings, leading to the rejection of the stay application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>