<?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 (7) TMI 627 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363319</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition challenging Circular No.276/104/2016-CX.8A, emphasizing the binding nature of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise &amp;amp; Customs. The court held that the stay on a specific judgment did not universally affect adjudication proceedings and that Circulars must be followed for consistency. The court rejected the petitioner&#039;s concerns regarding compliance with statutory requirements under the Customs Act, stating that there was no basis for such apprehensions. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed, with the court noting that appellate remedies under the Customs Act were still available to the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2019 12:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 627 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363319</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition challenging Circular No.276/104/2016-CX.8A, emphasizing the binding nature of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise &amp;amp; Customs. The court held that the stay on a specific judgment did not universally affect adjudication proceedings and that Circulars must be followed for consistency. The court rejected the petitioner&#039;s concerns regarding compliance with statutory requirements under the Customs Act, stating that there was no basis for such apprehensions. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed, with the court noting that appellate remedies under the Customs Act were still available to the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>