https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372168 Further proceedings before the Tribunal were treated as a continuation of the order under challenge in the tax appeal, so parallel adjudication was considered unnecessary and potentially duplicative. The Court noted that the appellant had already made the mandatory pre-deposit and that allowing the Tribunal to continue could render the appellate challenge ineffective if the tax appeal succeeded. It also observed that any consequential orders arising from the Tribunal's decision would not survive if the appeal were allowed. On that basis, the Court declined to permit the Tribunal to proceed with the connected appeals and granted interim protection to the appellant. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:09:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372168 Further proceedings before the Tribunal were treated as a continuation of the order under challenge in the tax appeal, so parallel adjudication was considered unnecessary and potentially duplicative. The Court noted that the appellant had already made the mandatory pre-deposit and that allowing the Tribunal to continue could render the appellate challenge ineffective if the tax appeal succeeded. It also observed that any consequential orders arising from the Tribunal's decision would not survive if the appeal were allowed. On that basis, the Court declined to permit the Tribunal to proceed with the connected appeals and granted interim protection to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372168