<?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>1973 (12) TMI 88 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165546</link>
    <description>Where partners of a warehouse-licence firm had expressly undertaken joint and several liability in the licence bond, the excise department was entitled to require each partner to furnish an individual solvency certificate for renewal of the licence. The firm&#039;s security was not treated as the exclusive source of assurance, because the partners&#039; separate liability supported a demand for personal solvency proof from each of them. The challenge to that requirement failed, and the writ petition was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:21:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (12) TMI 88 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165546</link>
      <description>Where partners of a warehouse-licence firm had expressly undertaken joint and several liability in the licence bond, the excise department was entitled to require each partner to furnish an individual solvency certificate for renewal of the licence. The firm&#039;s security was not treated as the exclusive source of assurance, because the partners&#039; separate liability supported a demand for personal solvency proof from each of them. The challenge to that requirement failed, and the writ petition was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>