<?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>2025 (10) TMI 558 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779762</link>
    <description>HC refused to waive the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E for recovery of duty drawback where proof of export realisation was not submitted. Citing precedent, the court held the right of appeal is statutory and subject to legislative conditions, and a frozen bank account does not justify relaxing the pre-deposit regime. The petitioner was directed to make the pre-deposit and allowed to prosecute the appeal on merits. Petition disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2025 08:53:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 558 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779762</link>
      <description>HC refused to waive the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E for recovery of duty drawback where proof of export realisation was not submitted. Citing precedent, the court held the right of appeal is statutory and subject to legislative conditions, and a frozen bank account does not justify relaxing the pre-deposit regime. The petitioner was directed to make the pre-deposit and allowed to prosecute the appeal on merits. Petition disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>