<?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>2012 (12) TMI 535 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219520</link>
    <description>The Restoration application of the Stay petition was allowed upon payment of a cost of Rs.20,000. The applicant was directed to deposit the cost with the jurisdictional Commissioner within two weeks, and the Stay application was adjourned to 4.12.2012. The Tribunal found that the delay in requesting an adjournment indicated an intention to prolong the proceedings, and the applicant&#039;s actions suggested an interest in delaying the process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 535 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219520</link>
      <description>The Restoration application of the Stay petition was allowed upon payment of a cost of Rs.20,000. The applicant was directed to deposit the cost with the jurisdictional Commissioner within two weeks, and the Stay application was adjourned to 4.12.2012. The Tribunal found that the delay in requesting an adjournment indicated an intention to prolong the proceedings, and the applicant&#039;s actions suggested an interest in delaying the process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>