<?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 1348 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335330</link>
    <description>The High Court disagreed with the Settlement Commission&#039;s decision requiring separate applications for each show cause notice under the Central Excise Act. The Court found that the investigations stemmed from the same trigger event, making separate applications unnecessary. It set aside the Commission&#039;s order and directed the pending applications to proceed without the need for separate filings. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing their writ petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1348 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335330</link>
      <description>The High Court disagreed with the Settlement Commission&#039;s decision requiring separate applications for each show cause notice under the Central Excise Act. The Court found that the investigations stemmed from the same trigger event, making separate applications unnecessary. It set aside the Commission&#039;s order and directed the pending applications to proceed without the need for separate filings. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing their writ petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>