<?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 (10) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46939</link>
    <description>The HC quashed the impugned order issued by the respondent for the recovery of a refund under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court determined that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to review and alter its own finalized order, as no statutory provision conferred such authority. Consequently, the order was deemed without jurisdiction and invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2024 16:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46939</link>
      <description>The HC quashed the impugned order issued by the respondent for the recovery of a refund under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court determined that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to review and alter its own finalized order, as no statutory provision conferred such authority. Consequently, the order was deemed without jurisdiction and invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>