<?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>2006 (3) TMI 74 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5170</link>
    <description>The nature of a levy on import of spirit was treated as a pure question of law arising under the excise rules, so it could not be excluded merely because it had not been perfectly pleaded earlier. However, fairness required the assessee to have a specific opportunity to meet the case on whether the impost was countervailing duty. The earlier decisions were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for determination of that issue alone, with the merits of the levy left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 74 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5170</link>
      <description>The nature of a levy on import of spirit was treated as a pure question of law arising under the excise rules, so it could not be excluded merely because it had not been perfectly pleaded earlier. However, fairness required the assessee to have a specific opportunity to meet the case on whether the impost was countervailing duty. The earlier decisions were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for determination of that issue alone, with the merits of the levy left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>