<?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>2009 (1) TMI 878 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125831</link>
    <description>Imported defibrillators and pacemakers were found prima facie entitled to exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. because the Revenue&#039;s reliance on an earlier Tribunal view was weakened by the Supreme Court&#039;s stay of that view. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for interim protection and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in relation to the duty and penalty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 878 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125831</link>
      <description>Imported defibrillators and pacemakers were found prima facie entitled to exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. because the Revenue&#039;s reliance on an earlier Tribunal view was weakened by the Supreme Court&#039;s stay of that view. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for interim protection and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in relation to the duty and penalty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>