<?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 (8) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92163</link>
    <description>Unconditional stay of recovery was granted because the stay application was treated as factually identical to earlier matters in which similar interim relief had already been allowed. No distinguishing feature was shown to justify refusing the same treatment, so the confirmed duty demand was stayed unconditionally until disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:24:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92163</link>
      <description>Unconditional stay of recovery was granted because the stay application was treated as factually identical to earlier matters in which similar interim relief had already been allowed. No distinguishing feature was shown to justify refusing the same treatment, so the confirmed duty demand was stayed unconditionally until disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>