<?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>2009 (3) TMI 986 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174049</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the fire and resulting destruction of inputs used in intermediate products and capital goods was accidental was treated as a pure factual conclusion. On that basis, the HC held that no question of law arose for consideration and declined to interfere. The limited liability assessed by the Tribunal also supported refusal of relief. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving the Tribunal&#039;s factual finding undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2017 09:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 986 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174049</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the fire and resulting destruction of inputs used in intermediate products and capital goods was accidental was treated as a pure factual conclusion. On that basis, the HC held that no question of law arose for consideration and declined to interfere. The limited liability assessed by the Tribunal also supported refusal of relief. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving the Tribunal&#039;s factual finding undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>