<?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>1990 (8) TMI 164 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43073</link>
    <description>Where the classification issue had not yet been decided, the matter was directed to be determined by the appropriate excise authority; where an order had already been passed, the parties were left to pursue the statutory appeal. Interim protection was continued only for the limited periods stated in the order, preserving status quo pending the chosen forum&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:06:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 164 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43073</link>
      <description>Where the classification issue had not yet been decided, the matter was directed to be determined by the appropriate excise authority; where an order had already been passed, the parties were left to pursue the statutory appeal. Interim protection was continued only for the limited periods stated in the order, preserving status quo pending the chosen forum&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>