<?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>1975 (12) TMI 163 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166115</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of excise duty demand on liquor not lifted by contractors. The Court clarified that excise duty is only applicable to drawn liquor, not undrawn liquor. The demands for excise duty on undrawn liquor were deemed unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:43:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (12) TMI 163 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166115</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of excise duty demand on liquor not lifted by contractors. The Court clarified that excise duty is only applicable to drawn liquor, not undrawn liquor. The demands for excise duty on undrawn liquor were deemed unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>