<?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 (1) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47804</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the appellate authority&#039;s direction requiring a pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal, holding that a deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs was reasonable and calling for no interference. It further directed that if the appellant made the deposit within six weeks, the appeal dismissed in default for non-payment would be restored and decided on merits; failing compliance, the dismissal would continue to operate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:32:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47804</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the appellate authority&#039;s direction requiring a pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal, holding that a deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs was reasonable and calling for no interference. It further directed that if the appellant made the deposit within six weeks, the appeal dismissed in default for non-payment would be restored and decided on merits; failing compliance, the dismissal would continue to operate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>