<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1138 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182136</link>
    <description>High Court interference with the Tribunal&#039;s finding on alleged fraud was unsustainable because the order lacked independent reasoning on the facts and merely referred to decisions of the Court. Where a question of law arises, the High Court must frame it properly and answer it in accordance with law; absent such reasoning, reconsideration is required. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 14:57:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1138 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182136</link>
      <description>High Court interference with the Tribunal&#039;s finding on alleged fraud was unsustainable because the order lacked independent reasoning on the facts and merely referred to decisions of the Court. Where a question of law arises, the High Court must frame it properly and answer it in accordance with law; absent such reasoning, reconsideration is required. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>