<?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>2010 (1) TMI 597 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201722</link>
    <description>Admission of an appeal does not automatically entitle the appellant to a stay of a Tribunal&#039;s refund direction. The Gujarat HC noted that, absent special circumstances justifying interim relief, execution of the CESTAT order should not be restrained merely because the appeal has been admitted. It also observed that the Revenue must follow the statutory procedure under the Act when considering the refund claim, and that compliance with that procedure is a precondition to implementation of the refund direction. On that basis, the request for stay against operation, execution and implementation of the refund order was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 597 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201722</link>
      <description>Admission of an appeal does not automatically entitle the appellant to a stay of a Tribunal&#039;s refund direction. The Gujarat HC noted that, absent special circumstances justifying interim relief, execution of the CESTAT order should not be restrained merely because the appeal has been admitted. It also observed that the Revenue must follow the statutory procedure under the Act when considering the refund claim, and that compliance with that procedure is a precondition to implementation of the refund direction. On that basis, the request for stay against operation, execution and implementation of the refund order was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>