<?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>1998 (4) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44953</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the detention order for turmeric powder, emphasizing the need for authorities to resolve factual disputes regarding its classification and liability under the Central Excise Act before judicial review. The court highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking court intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:44:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44953</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the detention order for turmeric powder, emphasizing the need for authorities to resolve factual disputes regarding its classification and liability under the Central Excise Act before judicial review. The court highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking court intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>