https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47500 Pendency of similar appeals before the Supreme Court did not justify keeping a pending representation in abeyance or preventing the authorities from deciding it according to law. The High Court therefore declined to modify or delete the earlier direction requiring decision within a fixed time. The application for modification was rejected, and the original direction to decide the representation remained operative, with the time for compliance extended to 31 March 2002. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:37:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47500 Pendency of similar appeals before the Supreme Court did not justify keeping a pending representation in abeyance or preventing the authorities from deciding it according to law. The High Court therefore declined to modify or delete the earlier direction requiring decision within a fixed time. The application for modification was rejected, and the original direction to decide the representation remained operative, with the time for compliance extended to 31 March 2002. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47500