<?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>1962 (10) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40408</link>
    <description>The court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision, concluding that the respondents do not manufacture &quot;refined oil&quot; as known to the market at any intermediate stage before the production of Vanaspati. The demands for excise duty on the intermediate product were found to have no legal basis. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the withdrawal of the impugned excise duty demands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 16:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (10) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40408</link>
      <description>The court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision, concluding that the respondents do not manufacture &quot;refined oil&quot; as known to the market at any intermediate stage before the production of Vanaspati. The demands for excise duty on the intermediate product were found to have no legal basis. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the withdrawal of the impugned excise duty demands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>