<?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>2014 (11) TMI 455 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253138</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding that the amendment to the notification was prospective, as per the law declared by the Apex Court. The court agreed with the Division Bench&#039;s interpretation, answering substantial questions of law against the Revenue. Consequently, the remaining questions were deemed academic and not addressed in the appeals. The court closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 455 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253138</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding that the amendment to the notification was prospective, as per the law declared by the Apex Court. The court agreed with the Division Bench&#039;s interpretation, answering substantial questions of law against the Revenue. Consequently, the remaining questions were deemed academic and not addressed in the appeals. The court closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>