<?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>2008 (4) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30218</link>
    <description>A stay of recovery already granted in pending appeals should continue until final disposal, even where a fresh demand notice is issued. The CESTAT Chennai applied its earlier view on similar applications and extended that approach to matters under Section 129E of the Customs Act, treating the fresh notice as not disturbing the subsisting stay. The authorities were directed to take note of this position, and the stay remained operative till the appeals were finally decided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30218</link>
      <description>A stay of recovery already granted in pending appeals should continue until final disposal, even where a fresh demand notice is issued. The CESTAT Chennai applied its earlier view on similar applications and extended that approach to matters under Section 129E of the Customs Act, treating the fresh notice as not disturbing the subsisting stay. The authorities were directed to take note of this position, and the stay remained operative till the appeals were finally decided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>