<?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>2024 (9) TMI 471 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758227</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding jurisdiction, affirming that Customs officers cannot assume authority beyond their designated areas. However, it upheld the legality of transferring the refund claim to the Airport Commissioner, as directed by CESTAT, ruling in favor of the respondent assessee. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:11:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 471 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758227</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding jurisdiction, affirming that Customs officers cannot assume authority beyond their designated areas. However, it upheld the legality of transferring the refund claim to the Airport Commissioner, as directed by CESTAT, ruling in favor of the respondent assessee. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>