<?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 (11) TMI 625 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334607</link>
    <description>Appeal was dismissed solely because the tax effect was negligible, and the Supreme Court left the question of law open. The order does not decide the substantive central excise issue and records no determination on the merits of the dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:20:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 625 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334607</link>
      <description>Appeal was dismissed solely because the tax effect was negligible, and the Supreme Court left the question of law open. The order does not decide the substantive central excise issue and records no determination on the merits of the dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>