<?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>2025 (5) TMI 62 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769790</link>
    <description>HC dismissed statutory appeal by tax authority against CESTAT order on value addition rate. Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction under Section 35G(1) of Central Excise Act, as appeal involved valuation without substantial legal question. Commissioner granted liberty to approach SC. Appeal disposed of without substantive examination of merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 08:54:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 62 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769790</link>
      <description>HC dismissed statutory appeal by tax authority against CESTAT order on value addition rate. Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction under Section 35G(1) of Central Excise Act, as appeal involved valuation without substantial legal question. Commissioner granted liberty to approach SC. Appeal disposed of without substantive examination of merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>