https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118021 The Tribunal dismissed the stay application against an attachment order under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants' request to prevent the auction of the attached property was rejected as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of quantified duty or penalty. Emphasizing statutory constraints, the Tribunal stated that parties should have taken timely legal action earlier. The application for stay was deemed infructuous and dismissed, underscoring the importance of addressing attachment issues promptly within the statutory framework. en-us Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118021 The Tribunal dismissed the stay application against an attachment order under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants' request to prevent the auction of the attached property was rejected as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of quantified duty or penalty. Emphasizing statutory constraints, the Tribunal stated that parties should have taken timely legal action earlier. The application for stay was deemed infructuous and dismissed, underscoring the importance of addressing attachment issues promptly within the statutory framework. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118021