<?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>2001 (6) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46214</link>
    <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was discussed as a stay provision covering winding up, execution, distress and similar proceedings against an industrial company&#039;s properties while an inquiry, scheme or appeal is pending. The text treats &quot;distress&quot; as independently operative and not controlled by the neighbouring words &quot;execution or the like&quot;, so recovery action for excise revenue is not automatically outside the statutory protection merely because it seeks revenue collection. In the cited matter, the existing orders were described as well reasoned and supported by the record, and the challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:11:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46214</link>
      <description>Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was discussed as a stay provision covering winding up, execution, distress and similar proceedings against an industrial company&#039;s properties while an inquiry, scheme or appeal is pending. The text treats &quot;distress&quot; as independently operative and not controlled by the neighbouring words &quot;execution or the like&quot;, so recovery action for excise revenue is not automatically outside the statutory protection merely because it seeks revenue collection. In the cited matter, the existing orders were described as well reasoned and supported by the record, and the challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>