<?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 (2) TMI 479 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338779</link>
    <description>Binding precedent had already resolved the substantive issue against the revenue, as the assessee&#039;s appeals were allowed on merits and that view was affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court further noted that the same issue had later been decided by the Supreme Court against the revenue, so remanding the matter to the Tribunal would serve no fruitful purpose. It therefore declined to interfere with the Tribunal&#039;s treatment of the revenue&#039;s appeals and dismissed the challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 479 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338779</link>
      <description>Binding precedent had already resolved the substantive issue against the revenue, as the assessee&#039;s appeals were allowed on merits and that view was affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court further noted that the same issue had later been decided by the Supreme Court against the revenue, so remanding the matter to the Tribunal would serve no fruitful purpose. It therefore declined to interfere with the Tribunal&#039;s treatment of the revenue&#039;s appeals and dismissed the challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>