<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>taxesinindia &#187; unconstitutional</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/tag/unconstitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:33:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC 9D OF CESACT</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/10/16/constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/10/16/constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[challenge the invocation of provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opportunity to make submissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ultra vires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unconstitutional]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/10/16/constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, while deciding on 28.8.09 the W.P.(C) Nos.1854 and 1895-1898/1992 in re: J&#38;K CIGARETTES LTD vs CCEX the conclusions were summarised as follows:- QUOTE: Thus, we summarize our conclusions as under:- (i) We are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 9D(2) of the Act are not unconstitutional or [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/10/16/constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC 9D OF CESACT</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/10/16/constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/10/16/constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[challenge the invocation of provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opportunity to make submissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ultra vires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unconstitutional]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/10/16/constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, while deciding on 28.8.09 the W.P.(C) Nos.1854 and 1895-1898/1992 in re: J&#038;K CIGARETTES LTD vs CCEX the conclusions were summarised as follows:- QUOTE: Thus, we summarize our conclusions as under:- (i) We are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 9D(2) of the Act are not unconstitutional or [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/10/16/constitutional-validity-of-sec-9d-of-cesact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

