<?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 (9) TMI 1511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281164</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC identified substantial questions of law on whether the contract was composite, whether the Tribunal&#039;s remand was justified after rejecting the departmental demand under the composition scheme, and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked. The Court admitted the appeals on those framed questions of law, leaving the merits of the issues for determination in the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2019 23:57:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281164</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC identified substantial questions of law on whether the contract was composite, whether the Tribunal&#039;s remand was justified after rejecting the departmental demand under the composition scheme, and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked. The Court admitted the appeals on those framed questions of law, leaving the merits of the issues for determination in the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>