<?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 (9) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45389</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to an excise recovery show-cause notice was treated as premature because the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy. The petitioner was required to file a reply and participate in the adjudicatory process, and the excise scheme also provided an appeal if the decision went against it. On that basis, the writ petition was found not maintainable and dismissed in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:56:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45389</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to an excise recovery show-cause notice was treated as premature because the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy. The petitioner was required to file a reply and participate in the adjudicatory process, and the excise scheme also provided an appeal if the decision went against it. On that basis, the writ petition was found not maintainable and dismissed in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>