<?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>2006 (10) TMI 153 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47913</link>
    <description>The Court directed respondents to supply documents to petitioners before proceeding further. The Court dismissed an application seeking modification of the order, noting the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority. Petitioners&#039; request for additional directions, including cross-examination and stay on proceedings, was deemed an attempt to delay proceedings beyond Court&#039;s jurisdiction. The Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the application for further directions, finding it an attempt to review earlier orders. The application was ultimately withdrawn with Court permission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:45:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 153 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47913</link>
      <description>The Court directed respondents to supply documents to petitioners before proceeding further. The Court dismissed an application seeking modification of the order, noting the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority. Petitioners&#039; request for additional directions, including cross-examination and stay on proceedings, was deemed an attempt to delay proceedings beyond Court&#039;s jurisdiction. The Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the application for further directions, finding it an attempt to review earlier orders. The application was ultimately withdrawn with Court permission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>