<?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>1994 (12) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44172</link>
    <description>The High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing one petitioner to deposit a reduced amount based on financial constraints and waiving the balance. The larger petitioner was instructed to deposit the remaining sum within a stipulated period. Failure to comply would result in consequences under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Each party was to bear its own costs in the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:49:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (12) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44172</link>
      <description>The High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing one petitioner to deposit a reduced amount based on financial constraints and waiving the balance. The larger petitioner was instructed to deposit the remaining sum within a stipulated period. Failure to comply would result in consequences under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Each party was to bear its own costs in the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>