<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1029 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153830</link>
    <description>Where an appellant was bound by Tribunal and High Court directions to keep a bank guarantee alive pending appeal, a Departmental request to vacate the stay of recovery was rejected after the record showed the guarantee had expired earlier and no effective steps had been taken despite the alleged default. The application was treated as lacking bona fides, and the stay of recovery continued unchanged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:37:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1029 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153830</link>
      <description>Where an appellant was bound by Tribunal and High Court directions to keep a bank guarantee alive pending appeal, a Departmental request to vacate the stay of recovery was rejected after the record showed the guarantee had expired earlier and no effective steps had been taken despite the alleged default. The application was treated as lacking bona fides, and the stay of recovery continued unchanged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>