<?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 (12) TMI 780 - Gujarat high Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254437</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the Tribunal may extend the stay beyond 365 days if the delay is not attributable to the appellant and the appellant cooperates. The Tribunal must review the situation every 180 days and prioritize cases where stay is against the revenue. Each application for extension must be considered individually, with a speaking order passed. The Tribunal erred in passing a common order for extension of stay and was directed to pass individual orders. All matters were remanded for fresh orders within a specified period, emphasizing the need for speaking orders. The appeal was disposed of with instructions for compliance with previous judgment guidelines.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 780 - Gujarat high Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254437</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the Tribunal may extend the stay beyond 365 days if the delay is not attributable to the appellant and the appellant cooperates. The Tribunal must review the situation every 180 days and prioritize cases where stay is against the revenue. Each application for extension must be considered individually, with a speaking order passed. The Tribunal erred in passing a common order for extension of stay and was directed to pass individual orders. All matters were remanded for fresh orders within a specified period, emphasizing the need for speaking orders. The appeal was disposed of with instructions for compliance with previous judgment guidelines.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>