<?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 (9) TMI 359 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332098</link>
    <description>The Court directed the fourth respondent to return a gold chain to the petitioner within three weeks upon payment of fines and penalties, as the Appellate Authority&#039;s decision favored the petitioner and there was no stay on the order pending a revision application. The Court emphasized the petitioner&#039;s entitlement to the jewel until the order was lawfully altered, disposing of the Writ Petition without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 359 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332098</link>
      <description>The Court directed the fourth respondent to return a gold chain to the petitioner within three weeks upon payment of fines and penalties, as the Appellate Authority&#039;s decision favored the petitioner and there was no stay on the order pending a revision application. The Court emphasized the petitioner&#039;s entitlement to the jewel until the order was lawfully altered, disposing of the Writ Petition without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>