<?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>2004 (11) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47089</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal due to the lack of reasoning and evidence supporting the classification of the buyer as a different class. The Court emphasized the importance of providing factual evidence and specific reasons to establish different classes of buyers, rather than solely relying on the variation in pricing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47089</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal due to the lack of reasoning and evidence supporting the classification of the buyer as a different class. The Court emphasized the importance of providing factual evidence and specific reasons to establish different classes of buyers, rather than solely relying on the variation in pricing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>