<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1013 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238558</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for modification of a stay order, upholding the requirement for the appellant to deposit Rs.15 lakhs out of a total demand of approximately Rs.94 lakhs by a specified deadline. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s accounting system confusing and insufficient for consideration at the prima facie stage. Despite arguments raised by the counsel, the Tribunal maintained the deposit order, emphasizing the need for compliance within the set deadline to avoid appeal dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1013 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238558</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for modification of a stay order, upholding the requirement for the appellant to deposit Rs.15 lakhs out of a total demand of approximately Rs.94 lakhs by a specified deadline. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s accounting system confusing and insufficient for consideration at the prima facie stage. Despite arguments raised by the counsel, the Tribunal maintained the deposit order, emphasizing the need for compliance within the set deadline to avoid appeal dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>