<?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>2007 (1) TMI 466 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122925</link>
    <description>A debatable legal controversy requiring merits hearing was found unsuitable for conclusive determination in a miscellaneous application, so the Tribunal kept the pre-deposit order inoperative as an interim measure to avoid prejudice pending expeditious disposal of the appeal. The request for modification was therefore allowed, and interim relief was granted to the appellant while the appeal was listed for early hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:09:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 466 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122925</link>
      <description>A debatable legal controversy requiring merits hearing was found unsuitable for conclusive determination in a miscellaneous application, so the Tribunal kept the pre-deposit order inoperative as an interim measure to avoid prejudice pending expeditious disposal of the appeal. The request for modification was therefore allowed, and interim relief was granted to the appellant while the appeal was listed for early hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>