<?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>2000 (2) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45540</link>
    <description>Once a company is registered as sick and the Board directs revival steps, Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 creates a moratorium against execution, distress and other coercive recovery actions against its property unless the Board consents. A detention and attachment notice under the Central Excise Rules was treated as a coercive recovery measure and therefore fell within that statutory bar. The notice was suspended and could not be proceeded with further without the Board&#039;s consent, while recoveries of pre-existing dues remained subject to the same embargo.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45540</link>
      <description>Once a company is registered as sick and the Board directs revival steps, Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 creates a moratorium against execution, distress and other coercive recovery actions against its property unless the Board consents. A detention and attachment notice under the Central Excise Rules was treated as a coercive recovery measure and therefore fell within that statutory bar. The notice was suspended and could not be proceeded with further without the Board&#039;s consent, while recoveries of pre-existing dues remained subject to the same embargo.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>