<?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>2016 (1) TMI 95 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270303</link>
    <description>An earlier stay order had already treated the stated sum as sufficient pre-deposit for hearing, so that amount was regarded as fixed pre-deposit. Board Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX was held to apply only to appeals filed after the amendment of section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore did not support review of the earlier order. The request to fix a different pre-deposit amount was rejected and the miscellaneous application was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:48:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 95 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270303</link>
      <description>An earlier stay order had already treated the stated sum as sufficient pre-deposit for hearing, so that amount was regarded as fixed pre-deposit. Board Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX was held to apply only to appeals filed after the amendment of section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore did not support review of the earlier order. The request to fix a different pre-deposit amount was rejected and the miscellaneous application was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>