<?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>1986 (11) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41904</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the notifications, legality of seizure, authority of Preventive Officers, reasonable belief for seizure, validity of the order, imposition of penalty, and notification of the specified area. The petitioner&#039;s writ petitions were dismissed, and they were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 500/- to the third respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:10:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (11) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41904</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the notifications, legality of seizure, authority of Preventive Officers, reasonable belief for seizure, validity of the order, imposition of penalty, and notification of the specified area. The petitioner&#039;s writ petitions were dismissed, and they were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 500/- to the third respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>