<?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>2024 (11) TMI 1129 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762143</link>
    <description>Departmental appeals under the Central Excise Act were disposed of at the threshold because the monetary limit circular for Supreme Court appeals was not met. The Court noted the prescribed low tax effect limit and, without examining the merits of the controversy, declined to entertain the appeals and left the legal questions open. The operative effect was that the matter ended on the basis of the appeal threshold set by the circular, not on adjudication of the substantive issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2024 18:48:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1129 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762143</link>
      <description>Departmental appeals under the Central Excise Act were disposed of at the threshold because the monetary limit circular for Supreme Court appeals was not met. The Court noted the prescribed low tax effect limit and, without examining the merits of the controversy, declined to entertain the appeals and left the legal questions open. The operative effect was that the matter ended on the basis of the appeal threshold set by the circular, not on adjudication of the substantive issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>