<?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 380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111991</link>
    <description>Stay of the operation of an exemption order under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. for imported printer mechanism was refused because the Tribunal relied on its earlier stay order on the same issue. The dispute had already been treated as arguable, and that prior view left no basis for granting a fresh stay. The present stay request was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:44:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111991</link>
      <description>Stay of the operation of an exemption order under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. for imported printer mechanism was refused because the Tribunal relied on its earlier stay order on the same issue. The dispute had already been treated as arguable, and that prior view left no basis for granting a fresh stay. The present stay request was therefore rejected.</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=111991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>