<?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>2015 (11) TMI 1152 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268343</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai addressed an application seeking contempt proceedings against the respondent for failure to release goods as directed by the Tribunal&#039;s order. The Tribunal acknowledged the respondent&#039;s appeal and stay petition filed promptly after receiving the order, advising the appellant to await the High Court&#039;s decision to avoid rendering the stay petition ineffective. The Tribunal refrained from further examination of issues such as delay in judgment pronouncement or communication of orders, emphasizing its decision was not a review but a directive pending the High Court&#039;s determination. The appellant&#039;s application was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:34:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1152 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268343</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai addressed an application seeking contempt proceedings against the respondent for failure to release goods as directed by the Tribunal&#039;s order. The Tribunal acknowledged the respondent&#039;s appeal and stay petition filed promptly after receiving the order, advising the appellant to await the High Court&#039;s decision to avoid rendering the stay petition ineffective. The Tribunal refrained from further examination of issues such as delay in judgment pronouncement or communication of orders, emphasizing its decision was not a review but a directive pending the High Court&#039;s determination. The appellant&#039;s application was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>