<?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 1035 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271243</link>
    <description>The civil appeal was dismissed solely because the tax effect was found to be negligible, and no substantive issue was examined on merits. The order reflects a threshold-based disposal in central excise litigation, where the Court declined to proceed further once the insignificant revenue implication was noted. The dismissal rested entirely on that ground, without determining the underlying dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1035 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271243</link>
      <description>The civil appeal was dismissed solely because the tax effect was found to be negligible, and no substantive issue was examined on merits. The order reflects a threshold-based disposal in central excise litigation, where the Court declined to proceed further once the insignificant revenue implication was noted. The dismissal rested entirely on that ground, without determining the underlying dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>