<?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 (6) TMI 509 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260584</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reaffirmed its inherent power to grant stay under the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the abolition of Section 35C(2A). It held that the removal of the specific provision did not diminish its authority to extend stay, citing precedents. The Tribunal rejected the Departmental Representative&#039;s argument and extended the stay granted earlier, emphasizing the necessity of the power to grant stay for effective adjudication of appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:18:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 509 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260584</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reaffirmed its inherent power to grant stay under the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the abolition of Section 35C(2A). It held that the removal of the specific provision did not diminish its authority to extend stay, citing precedents. The Tribunal rejected the Departmental Representative&#039;s argument and extended the stay granted earlier, emphasizing the necessity of the power to grant stay for effective adjudication of appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>