<?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>2003 (8) TMI 48 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46652</link>
    <description>Where a commodity was already treated as exempt from excise duty, its valuation did not survive for examination, because exemption removed the need to assess duty liability. A later Tribunal decision describing the product differently could not displace that position in the present appeal, as it was rendered subsequently and was relevant only to future disputes where exemption itself remains contested. On that basis, the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 48 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46652</link>
      <description>Where a commodity was already treated as exempt from excise duty, its valuation did not survive for examination, because exemption removed the need to assess duty liability. A later Tribunal decision describing the product differently could not displace that position in the present appeal, as it was rendered subsequently and was relevant only to future disputes where exemption itself remains contested. On that basis, the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>