<?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>2014 (7) TMI 747 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249711</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi referred the issue of extending stay beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act to a Larger Bench for consideration. The Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for reconsideration due to differences in language between the Income Tax Act and the Central Excise Act, indicating the possibility of granting extensions beyond 365 days, particularly when delays were not attributable to the appellant. The Tribunal directed the respondents not to take coercive recovery steps pending the Larger Bench&#039;s decision, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of legal provisions and precedents in this matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 747 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249711</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi referred the issue of extending stay beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act to a Larger Bench for consideration. The Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for reconsideration due to differences in language between the Income Tax Act and the Central Excise Act, indicating the possibility of granting extensions beyond 365 days, particularly when delays were not attributable to the appellant. The Tribunal directed the respondents not to take coercive recovery steps pending the Larger Bench&#039;s decision, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of legal provisions and precedents in this matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>