<?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>2005 (9) TMI 337 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115608</link>
    <description>The Tribunal treated its earlier stay-extension orders as continuing in force despite a departmental demand notice issued under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on the Larger Bench decision and the Supreme Court ruling recognising the Tribunal&#039;s power to extend stay, it held that the notice did not displace the subsisting stay order. The stay extension was reiterated and directed to remain operative until final disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 13:36:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 337 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115608</link>
      <description>The Tribunal treated its earlier stay-extension orders as continuing in force despite a departmental demand notice issued under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on the Larger Bench decision and the Supreme Court ruling recognising the Tribunal&#039;s power to extend stay, it held that the notice did not displace the subsisting stay order. The stay extension was reiterated and directed to remain operative until final disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>