<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1050 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770778</link>
    <description>HC addressed service validity under Customs Act, 1962. Respondents affixed order on Notice Board, but petitioner challenged non-service at updated address. Court directed respondents to provide Order-in-Original and Show Cause Notice within one week, allowing petitioner to file appeal. Coercive recovery actions were restrained temporarily. HC emphasized Appellate Authority&#039;s role in deciding merits and limitation, without expressing opinion on substantive issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1050 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770778</link>
      <description>HC addressed service validity under Customs Act, 1962. Respondents affixed order on Notice Board, but petitioner challenged non-service at updated address. Court directed respondents to provide Order-in-Original and Show Cause Notice within one week, allowing petitioner to file appeal. Coercive recovery actions were restrained temporarily. HC emphasized Appellate Authority&#039;s role in deciding merits and limitation, without expressing opinion on substantive issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>