<?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>1996 (9) TMI 614 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175714</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appeals, ruling that the appellants were not considered independent manufacturers entitled to the excise duty exemption notification benefit due to their relationship with M/s. Enfield India Ltd. The Court emphasized the control exerted by Enfield over various aspects of the manufacturing process, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were not operating as independent contractors. No costs were awarded in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 15:16:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 614 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175714</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appeals, ruling that the appellants were not considered independent manufacturers entitled to the excise duty exemption notification benefit due to their relationship with M/s. Enfield India Ltd. The Court emphasized the control exerted by Enfield over various aspects of the manufacturing process, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were not operating as independent contractors. No costs were awarded in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>