<?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 (4) TMI 488 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113864</link>
    <description>Stay of a refund order was granted where Revenue argued that the benefit of Notification No. 51/96-Cus. dated 23.07.1996 could not be re-examined in refund proceedings. The operative point was the challenge to whether that notification benefit could be reconsidered at the refund stage, and the impugned order was stayed pending further consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 18:15:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 488 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113864</link>
      <description>Stay of a refund order was granted where Revenue argued that the benefit of Notification No. 51/96-Cus. dated 23.07.1996 could not be re-examined in refund proceedings. The operative point was the challenge to whether that notification benefit could be reconsidered at the refund stage, and the impugned order was stayed pending further consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>