<?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>2019 (11) TMI 1721 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301435</link>
    <description>Under the Customs Act, the Tribunal had no enabling provision to grant stay of Commissioner (Appeals) orders directing release of confiscated gold. It held that its stay power had earlier been confined to pre-deposit matters before the amendment introducing mandatory pre-deposit, and that no broader stay jurisdiction survived for the present circumstances. The stay applications were therefore not maintainable and were dismissed, leaving the release orders undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2022 20:58:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1721 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301435</link>
      <description>Under the Customs Act, the Tribunal had no enabling provision to grant stay of Commissioner (Appeals) orders directing release of confiscated gold. It held that its stay power had earlier been confined to pre-deposit matters before the amendment introducing mandatory pre-deposit, and that no broader stay jurisdiction survived for the present circumstances. The stay applications were therefore not maintainable and were dismissed, leaving the release orders undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>