<?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>2004 (11) TMI 173 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53544</link>
    <description>A pre-deposit condition imposed to protect Government revenue was dispensed with because the department had already attached the applicant&#039;s property and revenue to roughly the same extent was secured. The attachment was treated as substantially fulfilling the purpose of the stay order, and the attached property could be sold to recover the secured amount. The stay order was therefore modified in favour of the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:01:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 173 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53544</link>
      <description>A pre-deposit condition imposed to protect Government revenue was dispensed with because the department had already attached the applicant&#039;s property and revenue to roughly the same extent was secured. The attachment was treated as substantially fulfilling the purpose of the stay order, and the attached property could be sold to recover the secured amount. The stay order was therefore modified in favour of the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>