<?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>2018 (1) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353528</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, upholding the findings of both the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal. The burden of proving clandestine removal was not met, and procedural deficiencies in the appeal justified its rejection. The court found no substantial questions of law involved in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353528</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, upholding the findings of both the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal. The burden of proving clandestine removal was not met, and procedural deficiencies in the appeal justified its rejection. The court found no substantial questions of law involved in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>