<?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 648 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265373</link>
    <description>The HC recorded that these central excise appeals were numbered pursuant to an earlier order in writ petitions, where the delay had been condoned, the Tribunal&#039;s order had been set aside, and relief had already been granted to the appellants. As that prior order had effectively resolved the controversy, the Court held that nothing further survived for consideration in the appeals and disposed them of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:49:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 648 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265373</link>
      <description>The HC recorded that these central excise appeals were numbered pursuant to an earlier order in writ petitions, where the delay had been condoned, the Tribunal&#039;s order had been set aside, and relief had already been granted to the appellants. As that prior order had effectively resolved the controversy, the Court held that nothing further survived for consideration in the appeals and disposed them of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>