<?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 (4) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405955</link>
    <description>The court rejected the writ petition challenging the order for confiscation of gold bars and penalty imposition due to the denial of the right to cross-examine co-noticees. The judge cited precedent that established the lack of such a right and allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within six weeks, excluding the cross-examination issue. No costs were imposed on the petitioner, and a related miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2021 20:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=640600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405955</link>
      <description>The court rejected the writ petition challenging the order for confiscation of gold bars and penalty imposition due to the denial of the right to cross-examine co-noticees. The judge cited precedent that established the lack of such a right and allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within six weeks, excluding the cross-examination issue. No costs were imposed on the petitioner, and a related miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>