<?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>1998 (5) TMI 166 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90080</link>
    <description>At the stay stage, the Tribunal considered whether the goods could prima facie qualify as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. On the materials and rival submissions, it found the appellant&#039;s claim arguable for interim purposes and treated the prima facie case as sufficient to justify relief. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was granted, and recovery of the amounts was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:44:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 166 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90080</link>
      <description>At the stay stage, the Tribunal considered whether the goods could prima facie qualify as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. On the materials and rival submissions, it found the appellant&#039;s claim arguable for interim purposes and treated the prima facie case as sufficient to justify relief. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was granted, and recovery of the amounts was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>