<?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 (5) TMI 1037 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182209</link>
    <description>Once the High Court admitted the appeal against the original order, the Tribunal should not have proceeded to enforce that order. The party seeking implementation was required to approach the High Court for appropriate relief, and the pending admitted appeal justified protection against coercive enforcement. Ad interim relief in terms of the stay prayer was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 10:34:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 1037 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182209</link>
      <description>Once the High Court admitted the appeal against the original order, the Tribunal should not have proceeded to enforce that order. The party seeking implementation was required to approach the High Court for appropriate relief, and the pending admitted appeal justified protection against coercive enforcement. Ad interim relief in terms of the stay prayer was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>