<?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 (11) TMI 1450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194316</link>
    <description>The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petitions, stating that an appeal remedy was available to the petitioners against the impugned order. The petitioners were given two years to comply with the original show cause notice issued in 2013 before the present impugned notice. The court recommended that the petitioners seek redressal by approaching the Appellate Authority through an appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 22:07:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194316</link>
      <description>The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petitions, stating that an appeal remedy was available to the petitioners against the impugned order. The petitioners were given two years to comply with the original show cause notice issued in 2013 before the present impugned notice. The court recommended that the petitioners seek redressal by approaching the Appellate Authority through an appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>