<?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 (11) TMI 600 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267791</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to re-evaluate the issue, particularly the applicability of Rule 8(3) and Section 11AB, without relying solely on the previously overturned Chloritech Industries case. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 600 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267791</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to re-evaluate the issue, particularly the applicability of Rule 8(3) and Section 11AB, without relying solely on the previously overturned Chloritech Industries case. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>