<?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 (10) TMI 1215 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265940</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai clarified that stay orders granted under Section 35C of the CEA, 1944 remain valid even if certain provisions are omitted. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely disposal of appeals and ruled that stay orders in force beyond a specified date would continue until appeal disposal, eliminating the requirement for additional extension applications. This decision ensures the continuity and validity of stay orders, preventing undue burden on appellants for repeated extensions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:53:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1215 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265940</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai clarified that stay orders granted under Section 35C of the CEA, 1944 remain valid even if certain provisions are omitted. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely disposal of appeals and ruled that stay orders in force beyond a specified date would continue until appeal disposal, eliminating the requirement for additional extension applications. This decision ensures the continuity and validity of stay orders, preventing undue burden on appellants for repeated extensions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>