<?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>2011 (5) TMI 346 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206239</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal due to the appellants&#039; continuous non-compliance with the deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite extensions and adjournments granted, the appellants failed to deposit the specified duty amount within the required timeframe. The Tribunal noted the absence of a stay order from the High Court regarding the deposit order and based its decision on the failure to adhere to Section 35F provisions and previous orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 346 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206239</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal due to the appellants&#039; continuous non-compliance with the deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite extensions and adjournments granted, the appellants failed to deposit the specified duty amount within the required timeframe. The Tribunal noted the absence of a stay order from the High Court regarding the deposit order and based its decision on the failure to adhere to Section 35F provisions and previous orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>