<?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>2017 (1) TMI 418 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337338</link>
    <description>Concurrent findings of fact were recorded against the Department, and no legal question was shown to arise from those findings. The SC held that the Department had not made out any question of law for consideration. As the dispute turned only on adverse factual findings, the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 19:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 418 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337338</link>
      <description>Concurrent findings of fact were recorded against the Department, and no legal question was shown to arise from those findings. The SC held that the Department had not made out any question of law for consideration. As the dispute turned only on adverse factual findings, the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>