<?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>2019 (5) TMI 829 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380101</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Court found that the Tribunal and the first appellate authority&#039;s findings were not sustainable, as the adjudicating authority had already deemed the refund claim to be valid. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellant, leading to the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 07:56:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 829 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380101</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Court found that the Tribunal and the first appellate authority&#039;s findings were not sustainable, as the adjudicating authority had already deemed the refund claim to be valid. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellant, leading to the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>