<?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>2010 (2) TMI 478 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78480</link>
    <description>Interim protection was granted to preserve the petitioner&#039;s appellate remedy where no Tribunal Bench was available at Mumbai. The impugned orders were directed not to be given effect to until a regular or circuit Bench of the Tribunal became available at Mumbai or the stay application was heard, whichever occurred earlier. The direction ensured that the petitioner would not suffer prejudice solely because the stay application could not be taken up immediately.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:21:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 478 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78480</link>
      <description>Interim protection was granted to preserve the petitioner&#039;s appellate remedy where no Tribunal Bench was available at Mumbai. The impugned orders were directed not to be given effect to until a regular or circuit Bench of the Tribunal became available at Mumbai or the stay application was heard, whichever occurred earlier. The direction ensured that the petitioner would not suffer prejudice solely because the stay application could not be taken up immediately.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>