<?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>2013 (5) TMI 993 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275661</link>
    <description>Interim protection in competition proceedings was granted only against recovery of monetary penalties, where the appellants raised prima facie objections on the adjudicatory character of the process after statutory amendments, procedural irregularities, and issues concerning hearing, cross-examination, and participation of members. The Tribunal considered those objections fit for fuller examination and stayed recovery of the penalties, but only on condition that 10% of the penalties be deposited within one month to protect revenue interests. No prima facie infirmity was found in the cease and desist directions, so interim stay of those directions was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 993 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275661</link>
      <description>Interim protection in competition proceedings was granted only against recovery of monetary penalties, where the appellants raised prima facie objections on the adjudicatory character of the process after statutory amendments, procedural irregularities, and issues concerning hearing, cross-examination, and participation of members. The Tribunal considered those objections fit for fuller examination and stayed recovery of the penalties, but only on condition that 10% of the penalties be deposited within one month to protect revenue interests. No prima facie infirmity was found in the cease and desist directions, so interim stay of those directions was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>