<?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>1999 (8) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45419</link>
    <description>The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to non-compliance with Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The case involved a raid on a manufacturer&#039;s premises, leading to the registration of a case without the required notice under Section 40(2) of the Act. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the notice, ruling that its absence invalidated the proceedings and highlighted the importance of procedural compliance. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction resulting from non-compliance with Section 40 of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:44:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45419</link>
      <description>The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to non-compliance with Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The case involved a raid on a manufacturer&#039;s premises, leading to the registration of a case without the required notice under Section 40(2) of the Act. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the notice, ruling that its absence invalidated the proceedings and highlighted the importance of procedural compliance. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction resulting from non-compliance with Section 40 of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>