<?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 (12) TMI 1343 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270039</link>
    <description>Following the 6/8/2014 amendment to Section 129E of the Customs Act, the appellate tribunal noted that the provision no longer empowers it to grant stay or dispense with deposit against orders of the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals). Because Revenue did not identify any other statutory basis for the requested relief, the tribunal held that it lacked competence to entertain the stay application. The stay request was therefore dismissed for absence of statutory authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1343 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270039</link>
      <description>Following the 6/8/2014 amendment to Section 129E of the Customs Act, the appellate tribunal noted that the provision no longer empowers it to grant stay or dispense with deposit against orders of the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals). Because Revenue did not identify any other statutory basis for the requested relief, the tribunal held that it lacked competence to entertain the stay application. The stay request was therefore dismissed for absence of statutory authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>