<?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>1998 (2) TMI 609 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282341</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as the respondents could not be served despite efforts to obtain a new address. The Registry had been requesting a new address since January 4, 1997, with Show Cause Notices returned due to an incomplete address. The Central Agency claimed to have used the address provided by the respondents in the High Court, but no further action was taken despite the Registry&#039;s requests.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2019 14:37:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 609 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282341</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as the respondents could not be served despite efforts to obtain a new address. The Registry had been requesting a new address since January 4, 1997, with Show Cause Notices returned due to an incomplete address. The Central Agency claimed to have used the address provided by the respondents in the High Court, but no further action was taken despite the Registry&#039;s requests.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>