<?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 (6) TMI 390 - Bombay High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210187</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the Petition, setting aside the order of the Joint Secretary under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and called for a remand to reevaluate the Revision filed by the exporter. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough assessment of the lack of bonafides, fraudulent practices, and the legality of duty payment in light of the Cenvat Credit Rules, stressing the importance of a just outcome based on legal parameters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 390 - Bombay High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210187</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the Petition, setting aside the order of the Joint Secretary under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and called for a remand to reevaluate the Revision filed by the exporter. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough assessment of the lack of bonafides, fraudulent practices, and the legality of duty payment in light of the Cenvat Credit Rules, stressing the importance of a just outcome based on legal parameters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>