<?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>2010 (4) TMI 476 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78391</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Revenue&#039;s imposition of restrictions under Notification No. 32/2006. The petitioner&#039;s admitted violations led to the necessity of the restrictions to ensure compliance. The court emphasized that the payment of duty with interest did not exempt the petitioner from consequences. It suggested seeking redressal from the Central Excise Board for any grievances against the Commissioner&#039;s recommendations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:27:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 476 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78391</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Revenue&#039;s imposition of restrictions under Notification No. 32/2006. The petitioner&#039;s admitted violations led to the necessity of the restrictions to ensure compliance. The court emphasized that the payment of duty with interest did not exempt the petitioner from consequences. It suggested seeking redressal from the Central Excise Board for any grievances against the Commissioner&#039;s recommendations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>