<?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>2016 (6) TMI 874 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329165</link>
    <description>The Writ Court granted the appellant liberty to file an appeal against the original order, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal without relying on the Chemical Examiner&#039;s report. The court emphasized the appeal should be filed within a specified timeframe, and the limitation period should not be enforced due to the early filing of the writ petition. The court rejected the appellant&#039;s request to set aside the original order, noting the main grievance was the lack of opportunity for cross-examination. The department did not challenge the exclusion of the report, and the court upheld the decision to exclude it. The appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the appellant was given two weeks to file the appeal before the appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:25:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 874 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329165</link>
      <description>The Writ Court granted the appellant liberty to file an appeal against the original order, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal without relying on the Chemical Examiner&#039;s report. The court emphasized the appeal should be filed within a specified timeframe, and the limitation period should not be enforced due to the early filing of the writ petition. The court rejected the appellant&#039;s request to set aside the original order, noting the main grievance was the lack of opportunity for cross-examination. The department did not challenge the exclusion of the report, and the court upheld the decision to exclude it. The appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the appellant was given two weeks to file the appeal before the appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>