<?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>2017 (1) TMI 344 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337264</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order, and granted the petitioners six weeks to respond to the show cause notices. The petitioners were given the opportunity for a personal hearing to request cross-examination of witnesses if their statements were to be relied upon. The judgment emphasized the necessity of providing a fair chance for cross-examination, especially when statements are crucial in proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:37:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 344 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337264</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order, and granted the petitioners six weeks to respond to the show cause notices. The petitioners were given the opportunity for a personal hearing to request cross-examination of witnesses if their statements were to be relied upon. The judgment emphasized the necessity of providing a fair chance for cross-examination, especially when statements are crucial in proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>