https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345017 The interlocutory application seeking the deletion of Respondent No.2 from the Tax Appeal was allowed, permitting the removal of Respondent No.2 from the proceedings. The Tax Appeal, challenging the stay order issued by CESTAT, Kolkata, was not entertained by the Court. However, the Court directed CESTAT to expedite the decision on the Excise Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 within six months. Both parties agreed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments, leading to the disposal of the Tax Appeal with an emphasis on timely resolution of the Excise Appeal. en-us Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:51:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345017 The interlocutory application seeking the deletion of Respondent No.2 from the Tax Appeal was allowed, permitting the removal of Respondent No.2 from the proceedings. The Tax Appeal, challenging the stay order issued by CESTAT, Kolkata, was not entertained by the Court. However, the Court directed CESTAT to expedite the decision on the Excise Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 within six months. Both parties agreed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments, leading to the disposal of the Tax Appeal with an emphasis on timely resolution of the Excise Appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345017