<?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>2016 (4) TMI 1488 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470241</link>
    <description>A typographical reference to a notification instead of a circular does not by itself constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The note states that this incorrect reference in the earlier order did not justify exercise of review jurisdiction, and no ground for review was made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1488 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470241</link>
      <description>A typographical reference to a notification instead of a circular does not by itself constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The note states that this incorrect reference in the earlier order did not justify exercise of review jurisdiction, and no ground for review was made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>