<?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>2004 (1) TMI 447 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110655</link>
    <description>In similar circumstances based on the same evidence, the Tribunal applied the earlier course and modified the stay order by waiving the pre-deposit of duty. It declined, however, to grant a stay of recovery by the department, leaving that relief unavailable despite the waiver. The operative effect was limited to dispensing with the deposit requirement, without extending interim protection against recovery action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:26:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 447 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110655</link>
      <description>In similar circumstances based on the same evidence, the Tribunal applied the earlier course and modified the stay order by waiving the pre-deposit of duty. It declined, however, to grant a stay of recovery by the department, leaving that relief unavailable despite the waiver. The operative effect was limited to dispensing with the deposit requirement, without extending interim protection against recovery action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>