<?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>2005 (2) TMI 118 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47212</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. for silver chloride due to the department&#039;s failure to prove its marketability during the relevant period. The decision allows the assessee to benefit from the notification if marketability is established, and the appeal was disposed of without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 118 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47212</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. for silver chloride due to the department&#039;s failure to prove its marketability during the relevant period. The decision allows the assessee to benefit from the notification if marketability is established, and the appeal was disposed of without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>