<?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 936 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770664</link>
    <description>Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act allows appeals from Appellate Tribunal orders, but excludes matters involving determination of the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment. The dispute was treated as one relating to valuation, so it fell within that statutory exclusion. As a result, the High Court lacked appellate jurisdiction and could not examine the challenge on merits before that forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 07:32:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=821873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 936 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770664</link>
      <description>Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act allows appeals from Appellate Tribunal orders, but excludes matters involving determination of the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment. The dispute was treated as one relating to valuation, so it fell within that statutory exclusion. As a result, the High Court lacked appellate jurisdiction and could not examine the challenge on merits before that forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>