<?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>2004 (9) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47317</link>
    <description>The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad addressed petitions arising from a common order of the Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court noted the discretion of the Tribunal to pass conditional stay orders. The challenge to the common order dated 26-3-2004 was upheld due to lack of reasoning, leading to its quashing and remand for fresh consideration. The court emphasized the need for reasoned orders on stay applications. Both petitions were allowed, directing the Tribunal to provide a reasoned order considering the deposited duty amount and addressing all contentions. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:19:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47317</link>
      <description>The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad addressed petitions arising from a common order of the Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court noted the discretion of the Tribunal to pass conditional stay orders. The challenge to the common order dated 26-3-2004 was upheld due to lack of reasoning, leading to its quashing and remand for fresh consideration. The court emphasized the need for reasoned orders on stay applications. Both petitions were allowed, directing the Tribunal to provide a reasoned order considering the deposited duty amount and addressing all contentions. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>