<?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>1991 (2) TMI 229 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81066</link>
    <description>Tribunal procedure permitted a Regional Bench to hear stay applications in a Special Bench matter and to act as a Regional Special Bench for that limited purpose. On the facts, the importers showed a prima facie case through the DGTD certificate, financial hardship, and urgency arising from delay and demurrage on a live bill of entry, so interim relief by provisional assessment on personal bond with waiver of bank guarantee was within jurisdiction. The Department&#039;s unilateral refusal to implement the interim order, instead of seeking prompt relief, was treated as misconceived and inconsistent with the Tribunal&#039;s order. The Department&#039;s challenge therefore failed and the interim direction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:07:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 229 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81066</link>
      <description>Tribunal procedure permitted a Regional Bench to hear stay applications in a Special Bench matter and to act as a Regional Special Bench for that limited purpose. On the facts, the importers showed a prima facie case through the DGTD certificate, financial hardship, and urgency arising from delay and demurrage on a live bill of entry, so interim relief by provisional assessment on personal bond with waiver of bank guarantee was within jurisdiction. The Department&#039;s unilateral refusal to implement the interim order, instead of seeking prompt relief, was treated as misconceived and inconsistent with the Tribunal&#039;s order. The Department&#039;s challenge therefore failed and the interim direction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>