<?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>2003 (12) TMI 558 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113785</link>
    <description>A CHA licence suspended with immediate effect pending inquiry under the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984 was sought to be stayed. The tribunal held that interim stay required a prima facie case, and the adequacy of the evidence supporting the alleged regulatory contraventions could not be examined at the stay stage because that issue belonged to final hearing. On the material placed, no prima facie case for stay was shown, so the request for stay was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 14:21:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 558 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113785</link>
      <description>A CHA licence suspended with immediate effect pending inquiry under the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984 was sought to be stayed. The tribunal held that interim stay required a prima facie case, and the adequacy of the evidence supporting the alleged regulatory contraventions could not be examined at the stay stage because that issue belonged to final hearing. On the material placed, no prima facie case for stay was shown, so the request for stay was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>