<?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>1999 (8) TMI 292 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92454</link>
    <description>The petitioner was held entitled to the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme benefit where 50% of the disputed amount was tendered by cash on the last date and the balance was paid by cheque accepted by the respondent. The later realisation of the cheque did not defeat compliance, because the cheque was tendered within time and received as part payment of the statutory requirement. The refusal to grant the scheme benefit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:05:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 292 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92454</link>
      <description>The petitioner was held entitled to the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme benefit where 50% of the disputed amount was tendered by cash on the last date and the balance was paid by cheque accepted by the respondent. The later realisation of the cheque did not defeat compliance, because the cheque was tendered within time and received as part payment of the statutory requirement. The refusal to grant the scheme benefit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>