<?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 (3) TMI 569 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111904</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking vacation of the stay order regarding the grant of interest to the assessee. It emphasized that a stay order issued by a co-ordinate Bench cannot be altered by another Bench of equal jurisdiction. The decision highlighted the importance of jurisdictional constraints and the necessity for substantial grounds to support requests for altering previous orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:46:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 569 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111904</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking vacation of the stay order regarding the grant of interest to the assessee. It emphasized that a stay order issued by a co-ordinate Bench cannot be altered by another Bench of equal jurisdiction. The decision highlighted the importance of jurisdictional constraints and the necessity for substantial grounds to support requests for altering previous orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>