<?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>2018 (10) TMI 470 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368504</link>
    <description>The High Court of Bombay dismissed a petition seeking to keep a show-cause notice under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in abeyance. The court emphasized the petitioner&#039;s failure to apply for adjourning adjudication before seeking a mandatory direction. It highlighted the Commissioner&#039;s discretion to adjourn adjudication based on pending issues before the Tribunal and stated that the High Court should not interfere unless proceedings are arbitrary or cause serious prejudice. The court found no grounds for interference and concluded that the matter did not warrant extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The petition was dismissed without costs, maintaining the status quo.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:07:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 470 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368504</link>
      <description>The High Court of Bombay dismissed a petition seeking to keep a show-cause notice under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in abeyance. The court emphasized the petitioner&#039;s failure to apply for adjourning adjudication before seeking a mandatory direction. It highlighted the Commissioner&#039;s discretion to adjourn adjudication based on pending issues before the Tribunal and stated that the High Court should not interfere unless proceedings are arbitrary or cause serious prejudice. The court found no grounds for interference and concluded that the matter did not warrant extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The petition was dismissed without costs, maintaining the status quo.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>