<?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>2003 (5) TMI 77 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48945</link>
    <description>Non-implementation of a Tribunal&#039;s final order can attract a prima facie contempt concern where the authorities have not given consequential relief despite dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that partial refunds had been issued by some offices, but the Ghaziabad authorities refused refund and rejected one claim on limitation grounds, which appeared inconsistent with the earlier appellate direction. On that prima facie view, the Tribunal issued show-cause notices to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, required affidavits explaining the non-compliance, and indicated that a report could be sent to the High Court for contempt proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:25:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 77 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48945</link>
      <description>Non-implementation of a Tribunal&#039;s final order can attract a prima facie contempt concern where the authorities have not given consequential relief despite dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that partial refunds had been issued by some offices, but the Ghaziabad authorities refused refund and rejected one claim on limitation grounds, which appeared inconsistent with the earlier appellate direction. On that prima facie view, the Tribunal issued show-cause notices to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, required affidavits explaining the non-compliance, and indicated that a report could be sent to the High Court for contempt proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>