<?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>1995 (1) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44159</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and related notifications. The petitioners, Public Limited Companies importing scrap materials, sought a declaration of invalidity for the provisions and quashing of increased auxiliary duty demand. The court found lack of territorial jurisdiction to grant relief and declined to rule on the constitutionality issue, emphasizing that the cause of action was outside its jurisdiction. The request for a certificate under Articles 134A and 132 of the Constitution was also rejected, as no substantial constitutional question was identified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:52:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44159</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and related notifications. The petitioners, Public Limited Companies importing scrap materials, sought a declaration of invalidity for the provisions and quashing of increased auxiliary duty demand. The court found lack of territorial jurisdiction to grant relief and declined to rule on the constitutionality issue, emphasizing that the cause of action was outside its jurisdiction. The request for a certificate under Articles 134A and 132 of the Constitution was also rejected, as no substantial constitutional question was identified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>