<?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>2015 (4) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258185</link>
    <description>The High Court re-framed the substantial question of law to address whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the conversion without considering Rule 12(a) and Circular No.4 of 2004. The Court held that the Tribunal&#039;s direction was not justified, emphasizing the need to follow the prescribed procedures. However, the Commissioner was empowered to reconsider the claim for drawback in accordance with the circular upon remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258185</link>
      <description>The High Court re-framed the substantial question of law to address whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the conversion without considering Rule 12(a) and Circular No.4 of 2004. The Court held that the Tribunal&#039;s direction was not justified, emphasizing the need to follow the prescribed procedures. However, the Commissioner was empowered to reconsider the claim for drawback in accordance with the circular upon remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>