<?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 (5) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359707</link>
    <description>The court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the appellate remedy available for challenging the classification of LCD panels under the Customs Act. The court emphasized the limitations of the High Court in deciding factual issues related to classification disputes and dismissed the petition without imposing costs, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal if desired.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2018 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359707</link>
      <description>The court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the appellate remedy available for challenging the classification of LCD panels under the Customs Act. The court emphasized the limitations of the High Court in deciding factual issues related to classification disputes and dismissed the petition without imposing costs, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal if desired.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>