<?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 (7) TMI 122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345010</link>
    <description>Where a Tribunal order affects the valuation of imported goods and the statute provides an appeal to the Supreme Court, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked. Any objection that the remand directions exceeded the scope of the appeal is to be raised in the statutory appeal, not treated as a jurisdictional defect justifying writ interference. The High Court accordingly declined to entertain the writ petition and left the party to pursue the appellate remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:51:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345010</link>
      <description>Where a Tribunal order affects the valuation of imported goods and the statute provides an appeal to the Supreme Court, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked. Any objection that the remand directions exceeded the scope of the appeal is to be raised in the statutory appeal, not treated as a jurisdictional defect justifying writ interference. The High Court accordingly declined to entertain the writ petition and left the party to pursue the appellate remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>