<?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>2003 (4) TMI 455 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109482</link>
    <description>A derivative penalty appeal was restored because the penalty arose solely from the demand against the principal noticee, and that underlying matter had already been remanded for fresh decision. As the basis for insisting on pre-deposit no longer survived, the earlier final order was recalled and the stay order modified. The pre-deposit requirement was waived so the connected appeal could be heard, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:34:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 455 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109482</link>
      <description>A derivative penalty appeal was restored because the penalty arose solely from the demand against the principal noticee, and that underlying matter had already been remanded for fresh decision. As the basis for insisting on pre-deposit no longer survived, the earlier final order was recalled and the stay order modified. The pre-deposit requirement was waived so the connected appeal could be heard, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>