<?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>2011 (2) TMI 850 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208345</link>
    <description>The revenue&#039;s section 35G appeal in an excise duty and Cenvat credit dispute was rejected because the Original Authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal had all decided against the department. The Tribunal relied on an earlier decision on the main issue in favour of the assessee and found no basis to entertain the departmental challenge. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal on merits, while also criticising avoidable litigation over a small amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 850 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208345</link>
      <description>The revenue&#039;s section 35G appeal in an excise duty and Cenvat credit dispute was rejected because the Original Authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal had all decided against the department. The Tribunal relied on an earlier decision on the main issue in favour of the assessee and found no basis to entertain the departmental challenge. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal on merits, while also criticising avoidable litigation over a small amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>