https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432357 The court interpreted a previous order affecting manufacturers in the North-East region, emphasizing the impact of a Supreme Court stay on a High Court judgment invalidating a notification. The court ruled that the stay did not erase the original order but suspended it, leading to practical challenges for applicants. Following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the High Court judgment, the court ordered authorities to settle the petitioner's account for value addition rates. The Department was estopped from objecting to the timeliness of the petitioner's application based on prior submissions. The court granted respondents four weeks to confirm or adjust the value addition rate determination. No costs were awarded. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2023 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432357 The court interpreted a previous order affecting manufacturers in the North-East region, emphasizing the impact of a Supreme Court stay on a High Court judgment invalidating a notification. The court ruled that the stay did not erase the original order but suspended it, leading to practical challenges for applicants. Following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the High Court judgment, the court ordered authorities to settle the petitioner's account for value addition rates. The Department was estopped from objecting to the timeliness of the petitioner's application based on prior submissions. The court granted respondents four weeks to confirm or adjust the value addition rate determination. No costs were awarded. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432357