<?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>2016 (1) TMI 595 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270803</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court declined to decide whether &quot;roll&quot; and &quot;reel&quot; were the same item for classification purposes because the dispute was tax neutral and would have no tax consequence. As the classification question did not affect liability, the Court found no need to examine the substantive identity contention and dismissed the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2016 07:49:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 595 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270803</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court declined to decide whether &quot;roll&quot; and &quot;reel&quot; were the same item for classification purposes because the dispute was tax neutral and would have no tax consequence. As the classification question did not affect liability, the Court found no need to examine the substantive identity contention and dismissed the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>