<?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>2012 (8) TMI 625 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215943</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the importance of valid show cause notices, the distinction between different enactments, and the evolution of the classification of certain activities as manufacturing for the purposes of levying excise duty. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the demand of excise duty was upheld, and the Court reiterated the necessity of proper procedures in quasi-judicial proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 625 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215943</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the importance of valid show cause notices, the distinction between different enactments, and the evolution of the classification of certain activities as manufacturing for the purposes of levying excise duty. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the demand of excise duty was upheld, and the Court reiterated the necessity of proper procedures in quasi-judicial proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>