<?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>2001 (6) TMI 350 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96423</link>
    <description>The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai was dismissed for failure to comply with the deposit order within the specified timeframe. The application for restoration was also denied as the deposit made in 1999 did not align with the stay order, with the Tribunal emphasizing the importance of upholding its orders and maintaining their sanctity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:02:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 350 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96423</link>
      <description>The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai was dismissed for failure to comply with the deposit order within the specified timeframe. The application for restoration was also denied as the deposit made in 1999 did not align with the stay order, with the Tribunal emphasizing the importance of upholding its orders and maintaining their sanctity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>