<?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 (9) TMI 1078 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264410</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the applications for restoration of appeals that were previously dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order. The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to comply with the stay order requirements by not depositing the specified amounts, despite citing financial difficulties and property attachment. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that once the Revenue initiated recovery proceedings post-dismissal, it lacked the authority to restore the appeals for hearing. The Tribunal highlighted the applicants&#039; lack of diligence, abuse of legal processes, and non-compliance with the stay order as reasons for dismissing the restoration applications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:57:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1078 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264410</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the applications for restoration of appeals that were previously dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order. The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to comply with the stay order requirements by not depositing the specified amounts, despite citing financial difficulties and property attachment. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that once the Revenue initiated recovery proceedings post-dismissal, it lacked the authority to restore the appeals for hearing. The Tribunal highlighted the applicants&#039; lack of diligence, abuse of legal processes, and non-compliance with the stay order as reasons for dismissing the restoration applications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>