<?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>2015 (10) TMI 435 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265160</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court noted that the matter was squarely covered by its judgment in another appeal decided the same day, and on that basis dismissed the civil appeals. The order reflects no separate legal reasoning on the merits and indicates that the earlier decision governed the present controversy under Central Excise law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2015 07:57:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 435 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265160</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court noted that the matter was squarely covered by its judgment in another appeal decided the same day, and on that basis dismissed the civil appeals. The order reflects no separate legal reasoning on the merits and indicates that the earlier decision governed the present controversy under Central Excise law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>