<?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>2026 (7) TMI 1939 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796053</link>
    <description>Determination of a service&#039;s taxability is treated as a question relating to the rate of excise duty for appellate jurisdiction. An appeal from CESTAT on that issue is therefore not maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the statutory remedy lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. A contrary authority did not address High Court maintainability and provided no basis to depart from the binding Division Bench position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:27:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=914543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1939 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796053</link>
      <description>Determination of a service&#039;s taxability is treated as a question relating to the rate of excise duty for appellate jurisdiction. An appeal from CESTAT on that issue is therefore not maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the statutory remedy lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. A contrary authority did not address High Court maintainability and provided no basis to depart from the binding Division Bench position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>