<?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>2010 (7) TMI 1176 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280186</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court took up central excise appeals for hearing, but counsel for the appellants had only partially advanced submissions when the Court rose for the day. The matter therefore remained part-heard, with no substantive ruling recorded in the text.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:23:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 1176 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280186</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court took up central excise appeals for hearing, but counsel for the appellants had only partially advanced submissions when the Court rose for the day. The matter therefore remained part-heard, with no substantive ruling recorded in the text.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>