<?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>2003 (1) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46751</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the Department could not utilize the extended period of limitation as there was no evidence of fraudulent conduct by the appellant. The appeal was successful, overturning the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s order from 31-5-1991, and the dismissal of the appellant&#039;s writ petition was reversed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:38:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46751</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the Department could not utilize the extended period of limitation as there was no evidence of fraudulent conduct by the appellant. The appeal was successful, overturning the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s order from 31-5-1991, and the dismissal of the appellant&#039;s writ petition was reversed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>