<?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 (1) TMI 578 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117224</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted an extension of stay beyond 180 days, emphasizing its jurisdiction to do so even after the specified period. It criticized the Assistant Commissioner for disregarding the Tribunal&#039;s order by vacating the stay and adjusting the amount, directing the officials to explain their actions. The Tribunal reiterated its authority to grant stays beyond 180 days and stressed the importance of upholding its decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:50:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 578 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117224</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted an extension of stay beyond 180 days, emphasizing its jurisdiction to do so even after the specified period. It criticized the Assistant Commissioner for disregarding the Tribunal&#039;s order by vacating the stay and adjusting the amount, directing the officials to explain their actions. The Tribunal reiterated its authority to grant stays beyond 180 days and stressed the importance of upholding its decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>