<?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>2009 (6) TMI 368 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75482</link>
    <description>Revenue could not justify withholding implementation of the Tribunal&#039;s earlier order and continuing the bank guarantee without showing a stay or reversal by the High Court; the matter was not finally decided. The Bench directed filing of an affidavit and supporting documents covering the appeal, stay application, any interim order, the relevance of the letter relied upon, and the status of the bank guarantee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 368 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75482</link>
      <description>Revenue could not justify withholding implementation of the Tribunal&#039;s earlier order and continuing the bank guarantee without showing a stay or reversal by the High Court; the matter was not finally decided. The Bench directed filing of an affidavit and supporting documents covering the appeal, stay application, any interim order, the relevance of the letter relied upon, and the status of the bank guarantee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>