<?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 (6) TMI 377 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111986</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied the application for a stay of the remand order, stating that it was premature as the High Court had not decided on the reference application or framed any questions of law. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper procedural steps and highlighted available legal remedies for the party, rejecting the stay request at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:40:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 377 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111986</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied the application for a stay of the remand order, stating that it was premature as the High Court had not decided on the reference application or framed any questions of law. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper procedural steps and highlighted available legal remedies for the party, rejecting the stay request at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>