<?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>2015 (4) TMI 490 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258608</link>
    <description>Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act does not permit indefinite extension of stay, but limited continuation of interim protection may be justified where delay is not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal had already found a prima facie case in favour of the assessee and the pendency was linked to older matters. On that basis, the stay on recovery and waiver of pre-deposit were continued for six months, with a direction that the appeal be decided expeditiously.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:39:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 490 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258608</link>
      <description>Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act does not permit indefinite extension of stay, but limited continuation of interim protection may be justified where delay is not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal had already found a prima facie case in favour of the assessee and the pendency was linked to older matters. On that basis, the stay on recovery and waiver of pre-deposit were continued for six months, with a direction that the appeal be decided expeditiously.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>