<?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>2002 (7) TMI 788 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175413</link>
    <description>The SC condoned delay and dismissed the civil appeal as not pressed, noting the meagre quantum involved. It also recorded the request that the question of law be left open, and accordingly left that question undecided. The order therefore has no substantive adjudication on the underlying central excise issue and does not decide the legal principle in dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:42:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 788 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175413</link>
      <description>The SC condoned delay and dismissed the civil appeal as not pressed, noting the meagre quantum involved. It also recorded the request that the question of law be left open, and accordingly left that question undecided. The order therefore has no substantive adjudication on the underlying central excise issue and does not decide the legal principle in dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>