<?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>2021 (2) TMI 920 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404428</link>
    <description>The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to permit mutilation of goods at the petitioner&#039;s cost within three weeks. The petitioner&#039;s right under Section 110 of the Customs Act was not invoked, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioner. Compliance formalities for mutilation were to be facilitated by the respondents, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 920 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404428</link>
      <description>The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to permit mutilation of goods at the petitioner&#039;s cost within three weeks. The petitioner&#039;s right under Section 110 of the Customs Act was not invoked, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioner. Compliance formalities for mutilation were to be facilitated by the respondents, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>