<?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>2013 (1) TMI 281 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220175</link>
    <description>A refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs was not adjudicated on the merits in the writ petition; instead, the Court directed the competent departmental authority to consider the petitioner&#039;s representation and dispose of it in accordance with law within the stipulated time. The substantive refund issue was therefore left open for administrative determination, with no judicial finding on entitlement to refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:38:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 281 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220175</link>
      <description>A refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs was not adjudicated on the merits in the writ petition; instead, the Court directed the competent departmental authority to consider the petitioner&#039;s representation and dispose of it in accordance with law within the stipulated time. The substantive refund issue was therefore left open for administrative determination, with no judicial finding on entitlement to refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>