<?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 (10) TMI 820 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155538</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that failure to make the pre-deposit did not automatically dismiss the appeal without a formal order. Emphasizing the need for a formal order of dismissal, the Tribunal modified its previous order to allow the stay petition filed by the appellant based on the execution of the bond as per the High Court&#039;s directive. Compliance was noted before any dismissal order was issued, indicating a shift in the appeal&#039;s status.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:00:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 820 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155538</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that failure to make the pre-deposit did not automatically dismiss the appeal without a formal order. Emphasizing the need for a formal order of dismissal, the Tribunal modified its previous order to allow the stay petition filed by the appellant based on the execution of the bond as per the High Court&#039;s directive. Compliance was noted before any dismissal order was issued, indicating a shift in the appeal&#039;s status.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>