<?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>1985 (8) TMI 218 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72911</link>
    <description>In an application for a gold dealer&#039;s licence for Padi Village, the Tribunal considered whether Padi Township could be treated as a town for applying Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The document records that the issue turned on a question of law concerning the correct interpretation and application of the rule to the locality in question. The question was referred to the High Court for decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 218 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72911</link>
      <description>In an application for a gold dealer&#039;s licence for Padi Village, the Tribunal considered whether Padi Township could be treated as a town for applying Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The document records that the issue turned on a question of law concerning the correct interpretation and application of the rule to the locality in question. The question was referred to the High Court for decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>