<?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>1999 (3) TMI 210 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90909</link>
    <description>A stay application concerning pre-deposit was reconsidered on parity grounds after the department stated that no appeal was contemplated against orders dropping proceedings against two similarly placed buyers. On that basis, the pre-deposit requirement was reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs and recovery of the balance penalty was stayed on payment. The plea relating to the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was noted as not having been dealt with at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:29:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 210 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90909</link>
      <description>A stay application concerning pre-deposit was reconsidered on parity grounds after the department stated that no appeal was contemplated against orders dropping proceedings against two similarly placed buyers. On that basis, the pre-deposit requirement was reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs and recovery of the balance penalty was stayed on payment. The plea relating to the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was noted as not having been dealt with at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>