<?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>2000 (4) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93462</link>
    <description>Revenue&#039;s request for interim stay of an appellate order releasing a car was not entertained because no appeal or stay application had been filed against the person in whose favour release had been ordered. The requested stay would have had no practical effect in the absence of proceedings against the beneficiary of the release order, so the application was rejected and the order remained undisturbed at the interim stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:36:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93462</link>
      <description>Revenue&#039;s request for interim stay of an appellate order releasing a car was not entertained because no appeal or stay application had been filed against the person in whose favour release had been ordered. The requested stay would have had no practical effect in the absence of proceedings against the beneficiary of the release order, so the application was rejected and the order remained undisturbed at the interim stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>