<?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>2002 (4) TMI 70 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46239</link>
    <description>A new contention that the goods were not excisable because they were exempt from excise duty at the relevant time was rejected as it had not been urged before the High Court. The Court declined to entertain the belated argument and dismissed the appeal with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:21:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 70 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46239</link>
      <description>A new contention that the goods were not excisable because they were exempt from excise duty at the relevant time was rejected as it had not been urged before the High Court. The Court declined to entertain the belated argument and dismissed the appeal with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>