<?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 duty of excise. An appeal from CESTAT on that issue does not lie before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the prescribed appellate remedy is before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. The notes state that contrary authority had not addressed High Court maintainability and provided no basis to depart from the binding Division Bench view.</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 duty of excise. An appeal from CESTAT on that issue does not lie before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the prescribed appellate remedy is before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. The notes state that contrary authority had not addressed High Court maintainability and provided no basis to depart from the binding Division Bench view.</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>