<?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>2010 (11) TMI 948 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174752</link>
    <description>The compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act applied only from July 2008 and was not in force during the relevant period. As the Revenue relied on a regime that had not yet become operative, the Tribunal correctly held that the assessee could not be proceeded against on that basis. The Supreme Court left that view undisturbed and dismissed the challenge, confirming that a levy scheme cannot govern transactions outside its period of operation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 948 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174752</link>
      <description>The compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act applied only from July 2008 and was not in force during the relevant period. As the Revenue relied on a regime that had not yet become operative, the Tribunal correctly held that the assessee could not be proceeded against on that basis. The Supreme Court left that view undisturbed and dismissed the challenge, confirming that a levy scheme cannot govern transactions outside its period of operation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>