<?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>2009 (6) TMI 739 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126227</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted unconditional stay due to the delay in issuing the order, waived the pre-deposit of dues considering the appellant&#039;s financial hardship, and scheduled an early final hearing due to the prolonged delay and lack of urgency in concluding proceedings. The Commissioner&#039;s non-compliance with specific directions of the Tribunal, including failure to allow cross-examination and provide necessary documents, raised concerns about due process and the appellant&#039;s right to a fair hearing. The significant delay in issuing the impugned order, spanning over a decade, was deemed unjustifiable, especially considering the financial hardship faced by the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2012 14:39:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 739 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126227</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted unconditional stay due to the delay in issuing the order, waived the pre-deposit of dues considering the appellant&#039;s financial hardship, and scheduled an early final hearing due to the prolonged delay and lack of urgency in concluding proceedings. The Commissioner&#039;s non-compliance with specific directions of the Tribunal, including failure to allow cross-examination and provide necessary documents, raised concerns about due process and the appellant&#039;s right to a fair hearing. The significant delay in issuing the impugned order, spanning over a decade, was deemed unjustifiable, especially considering the financial hardship faced by the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>