<?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 (6) TMI 70 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91453</link>
    <description>Revenue&#039;s stay applications were rejected because no prima facie case was shown for interfering with the order granting Modvat credit. The mere apprehension that recovery would be difficult was not treated as sufficient ground to grant a stay, so the underlying credit order remained undisturbed at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:15:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 70 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91453</link>
      <description>Revenue&#039;s stay applications were rejected because no prima facie case was shown for interfering with the order granting Modvat credit. The mere apprehension that recovery would be difficult was not treated as sufficient ground to grant a stay, so the underlying credit order remained undisturbed at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>