<?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 (7) TMI 870 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330272</link>
    <description>The writ petitions were allowed, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer. The statements from the unavailable witnesses were to be disregarded, and the petitioners were directed to participate in the proceedings. The judgment aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair hearing for the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 870 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330272</link>
      <description>The writ petitions were allowed, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer. The statements from the unavailable witnesses were to be disregarded, and the petitioners were directed to participate in the proceedings. The judgment aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair hearing for the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>