<?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>2014 (10) TMI 50 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251916</link>
    <description>The operation of an impugned order was stayed pending appeal where the challenged order had set aside the adjudication without quantifying the duty demand or directing the lower authorities to determine the correct demand, leaving the net effect uncertain. In that situation, interim protection was considered necessary to preserve the subject matter of the appeal until final disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2014 08:49:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 50 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251916</link>
      <description>The operation of an impugned order was stayed pending appeal where the challenged order had set aside the adjudication without quantifying the duty demand or directing the lower authorities to determine the correct demand, leaving the net effect uncertain. In that situation, interim protection was considered necessary to preserve the subject matter of the appeal until final disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>