<?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 (5) TMI 14 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4203</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s judgment on the classification of &quot;micronutrient&quot; compounds for excise duty purposes and remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation. The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision on not invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the imposition of penalties. The civil appeals were partly allowed with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 14 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4203</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s judgment on the classification of &quot;micronutrient&quot; compounds for excise duty purposes and remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation. The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision on not invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the imposition of penalties. The civil appeals were partly allowed with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>