<?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>1993 (11) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43695</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court resolved the controversy over the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, regarding post-manufacturing expenses. The High Court held that demanding additional excise duty without notice violated natural justice. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the demand and directing fresh orders with proper notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:17:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43695</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court resolved the controversy over the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, regarding post-manufacturing expenses. The High Court held that demanding additional excise duty without notice violated natural justice. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the demand and directing fresh orders with proper notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>