<?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 (7) TMI 1020 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128029</link>
    <description>Time to comply with the stay order for deposit of the disputed amount was extended by eight weeks, and the appellant was directed to approach the jurisdictional Central Excise authority to seek a practical solution to facilitate deposit. The operative effect was a further window for compliance under the stay arrangement, together with an administrative route to enable payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:27:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1020 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128029</link>
      <description>Time to comply with the stay order for deposit of the disputed amount was extended by eight weeks, and the appellant was directed to approach the jurisdictional Central Excise authority to seek a practical solution to facilitate deposit. The operative effect was a further window for compliance under the stay arrangement, together with an administrative route to enable payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>