<?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 (8) TMI 108 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48842</link>
    <description>Rule 22 of the CEGAT Rules 1982 provides that an appeal abates where the appellant company is under winding up. Applying that rule, the Tribunal noted that the company had been wound up pursuant to the High Court&#039;s order and that, despite notice, the Official Liquidator did not enter appearance. The appeal was therefore treated as abated, and the Tribunal declined to examine the substantive issues referred to the Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:23:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 108 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48842</link>
      <description>Rule 22 of the CEGAT Rules 1982 provides that an appeal abates where the appellant company is under winding up. Applying that rule, the Tribunal noted that the company had been wound up pursuant to the High Court&#039;s order and that, despite notice, the Official Liquidator did not enter appearance. The appeal was therefore treated as abated, and the Tribunal declined to examine the substantive issues referred to the Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>