<?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>1998 (6) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45197</link>
    <description>An appellate authority cannot insist on a bank guarantee as a precondition for hearing an excise appeal where binding Supreme Court guidance on stay and appeal procedure is not properly applied. The Bombay HC set aside the guarantee requirement for the purpose of hearing and directed that the appeal be heard on merits without such insistence, expeditiously.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45197</link>
      <description>An appellate authority cannot insist on a bank guarantee as a precondition for hearing an excise appeal where binding Supreme Court guidance on stay and appeal procedure is not properly applied. The Bombay HC set aside the guarantee requirement for the purpose of hearing and directed that the appeal be heard on merits without such insistence, expeditiously.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>