<?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>1989 (9) TMI 231 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80082</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for unconditional stay was found where the applicants had correctly described the inputs and the department had accepted that description, even though the classification dispute remained unresolved. The plea of limitation was also treated as having force at this stage, and the Revenue&#039;s cited authorities were considered not directly relevant to the issue under consideration. On that basis, unconditional stay was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:17:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 231 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80082</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for unconditional stay was found where the applicants had correctly described the inputs and the department had accepted that description, even though the classification dispute remained unresolved. The plea of limitation was also treated as having force at this stage, and the Revenue&#039;s cited authorities were considered not directly relevant to the issue under consideration. On that basis, unconditional stay was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>