<?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>2006 (9) TMI 536 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172158</link>
    <description>Delay was condoned, but the Supreme Court kept the question of law open and declined to interfere on the facts, leading to dismissal of the appeal. The order indicates no determination on the legal issue raised, with the Court limiting itself to the factual matrix before it and leaving the substantive question unresolved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:56:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 536 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172158</link>
      <description>Delay was condoned, but the Supreme Court kept the question of law open and declined to interfere on the facts, leading to dismissal of the appeal. The order indicates no determination on the legal issue raised, with the Court limiting itself to the factual matrix before it and leaving the substantive question unresolved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>