<?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 (2) TMI 543 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96509</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted early hearing and interim protection, directing the authorities not to proceed against the bank guarantee until its final decision. It also noted prima facie that the confiscation order appeared to travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The document therefore highlights two operative points: interim restraint on recovery pending adjudication, and the need for the confiscation order to remain within the limits of the notice issued to the affected party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:29:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 543 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96509</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted early hearing and interim protection, directing the authorities not to proceed against the bank guarantee until its final decision. It also noted prima facie that the confiscation order appeared to travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The document therefore highlights two operative points: interim restraint on recovery pending adjudication, and the need for the confiscation order to remain within the limits of the notice issued to the affected party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>