<?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>2006 (9) TMI 433 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120135</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted for the balance demand because the Tribunal found the appealed demand distinct from the cited precedents and noted that the show cause notice had not invoked Rule 57CC or Rule 57AD. It also held that the refund amount appropriated by the Assistant Commissioner was taken without legal sanction, but for the limited purpose of Section 35F that amount could be retained by the department until final disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:31:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 433 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120135</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted for the balance demand because the Tribunal found the appealed demand distinct from the cited precedents and noted that the show cause notice had not invoked Rule 57CC or Rule 57AD. It also held that the refund amount appropriated by the Assistant Commissioner was taken without legal sanction, but for the limited purpose of Section 35F that amount could be retained by the department until final disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>