<?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>1996 (5) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47753</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the enforceability of Bank Guarantees post-Apex Court judgment, emphasizing compliance with the interim order terms. It rejected challenges to the validity of Bank Guarantees under the Supreme Court&#039;s interim order, citing adherence to its requirements. Dismissing concerns of unequal bargaining power, the Court stressed honoring Bank Guarantees as per terms. Regarding Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, the Court clarified its inapplicability due to the duty assessment and demand. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ applications, vacated the stay order, imposed costs on petitioners, and rejected their request for stay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:38:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47753</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the enforceability of Bank Guarantees post-Apex Court judgment, emphasizing compliance with the interim order terms. It rejected challenges to the validity of Bank Guarantees under the Supreme Court&#039;s interim order, citing adherence to its requirements. Dismissing concerns of unequal bargaining power, the Court stressed honoring Bank Guarantees as per terms. Regarding Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, the Court clarified its inapplicability due to the duty assessment and demand. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ applications, vacated the stay order, imposed costs on petitioners, and rejected their request for stay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>