<?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>1994 (9) TMI 96 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44227</link>
    <description>Documents filed by another assessee in its own proceedings could not be compelled by a third party through summons, so the appellant was not entitled to obtain the sample gate passes. The refund order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Baroda was treated as a public document, so an interested party could seek a copy under the applicable rules. If the copy was refused, the appellant could request the Assistant Collector to summon it from the other Assistant Collector.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:03:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 96 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44227</link>
      <description>Documents filed by another assessee in its own proceedings could not be compelled by a third party through summons, so the appellant was not entitled to obtain the sample gate passes. The refund order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Baroda was treated as a public document, so an interested party could seek a copy under the applicable rules. If the copy was refused, the appellant could request the Assistant Collector to summon it from the other Assistant Collector.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>