<?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 (6) TMI 600 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99020</link>
    <description>A co-noticee was held entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay of penalty where the main noticee had settled the matter under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The Tribunal relied on prior decisions granting similar relief to co-noticees and treated that line of authority as sufficient to extend interim protection from the penalty demand. The operative effect was that the appellant obtained waiver and stay despite being proceeded against independently as a co-noticee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:22:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 600 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99020</link>
      <description>A co-noticee was held entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay of penalty where the main noticee had settled the matter under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The Tribunal relied on prior decisions granting similar relief to co-noticees and treated that line of authority as sufficient to extend interim protection from the penalty demand. The operative effect was that the appellant obtained waiver and stay despite being proceeded against independently as a co-noticee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>