<?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>2008 (9) TMI 938 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175463</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals by following two earlier decisions, and those underlying decisions had already withstood challenge because the Revenue&#039;s appeals against them were dismissed. On that basis, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on those prior decisions could not be faulted and the present civil appeal was unsustainable. The civil appeal was accordingly dismissed, the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s earlier appeals effectively insulating the Tribunal&#039;s approach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 938 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175463</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals by following two earlier decisions, and those underlying decisions had already withstood challenge because the Revenue&#039;s appeals against them were dismissed. On that basis, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on those prior decisions could not be faulted and the present civil appeal was unsustainable. The civil appeal was accordingly dismissed, the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s earlier appeals effectively insulating the Tribunal&#039;s approach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>