<?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>1994 (4) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83132</link>
    <description>Reference jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was unavailable where the underlying order concerned the rate of excise duty and the interpretation of Notifications No. 235/85-C.E. and No. 40/85-C.E. dated 17-3-1985. Because those matters fell outside the scope of Section 35G, the application for reference was held not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:04:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83132</link>
      <description>Reference jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was unavailable where the underlying order concerned the rate of excise duty and the interpretation of Notifications No. 235/85-C.E. and No. 40/85-C.E. dated 17-3-1985. Because those matters fell outside the scope of Section 35G, the application for reference was held not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>