<?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 (10) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31745</link>
    <description>In a service tax appeal, the pre-deposit direction was modified by permitting the petitioner to secure the demand with a bank guarantee from a nationalised bank to the Commissioner&#039;s satisfaction. Once the guarantee was furnished, the Tribunal was directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits within six months and to pass an appropriate order regarding the guarantee. The modification replaced the original pre-deposit requirement with a conditional security arrangement, enabling substantive appellate hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31745</link>
      <description>In a service tax appeal, the pre-deposit direction was modified by permitting the petitioner to secure the demand with a bank guarantee from a nationalised bank to the Commissioner&#039;s satisfaction. Once the guarantee was furnished, the Tribunal was directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits within six months and to pass an appropriate order regarding the guarantee. The modification replaced the original pre-deposit requirement with a conditional security arrangement, enabling substantive appellate hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>