https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235280 Miscommunication of an ad interim stay order, coupled with suppression of the manner in which it was conveyed, was treated as misfeasance warranting costs. The appellant did not provide a certified copy to the departmental officer and instead used a declaration with a handwritten endorsement suggesting that stay had been granted, but later did not disclose the true communication method when the matter was mentioned. This caused the Superintendent to be summoned unnecessarily and away from official duties. Costs were upheld and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount within seven days. en-us Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235280 Miscommunication of an ad interim stay order, coupled with suppression of the manner in which it was conveyed, was treated as misfeasance warranting costs. The appellant did not provide a certified copy to the departmental officer and instead used a declaration with a handwritten endorsement suggesting that stay had been granted, but later did not disclose the true communication method when the matter was mentioned. This caused the Superintendent to be summoned unnecessarily and away from official duties. Costs were upheld and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount within seven days. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235280