<?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>1988 (2) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42186</link>
    <description>Security furnished to obtain interim protection in a writ petition was treated as a continuing obligation for the whole pendency of the proceeding, so expired bank guarantees without renewal did not satisfy the condition for retaining the excise duty in abeyance. The subsequent transfer of the tobacco division to another company did not relieve the original petitioners of liability, particularly where the change was not disclosed and the renewed guarantees continued to support the interim benefit. The Court stressed that the department and the public exchequer should not be left unsecured while the disputed amount remained protected by the Court&#039;s interim orders, and directed deposit of the amount covered by the expired guarantees into Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:50:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42186</link>
      <description>Security furnished to obtain interim protection in a writ petition was treated as a continuing obligation for the whole pendency of the proceeding, so expired bank guarantees without renewal did not satisfy the condition for retaining the excise duty in abeyance. The subsequent transfer of the tobacco division to another company did not relieve the original petitioners of liability, particularly where the change was not disclosed and the renewed guarantees continued to support the interim benefit. The Court stressed that the department and the public exchequer should not be left unsecured while the disputed amount remained protected by the Court&#039;s interim orders, and directed deposit of the amount covered by the expired guarantees into Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>