<?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 (8) TMI 104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346046</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, citing the availability of an alternative remedy before the CESTAT under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to appeal to the Tribunal, with a specified exclusion period for limitation computation and a temporary stay on coercive actions by the respondent. No costs were awarded, and the Court closed the related Miscellaneous Petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 07:17:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346046</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, citing the availability of an alternative remedy before the CESTAT under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to appeal to the Tribunal, with a specified exclusion period for limitation computation and a temporary stay on coercive actions by the respondent. No costs were awarded, and the Court closed the related Miscellaneous Petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>