<?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 (11) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1096</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision in a case involving the clubbing of four units for excise duty purposes. The Court emphasized the separate nature of the units and the revenue department&#039;s prior knowledge of the relevant facts within the limitation period. It highlighted the importance of maintaining distinct entities for excise purposes and the limitations on invoking extended periods for demands based on pre-existing knowledge by the revenue department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1096</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision in a case involving the clubbing of four units for excise duty purposes. The Court emphasized the separate nature of the units and the revenue department&#039;s prior knowledge of the relevant facts within the limitation period. It highlighted the importance of maintaining distinct entities for excise purposes and the limitations on invoking extended periods for demands based on pre-existing knowledge by the revenue department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>