<?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>2009 (12) TMI 453 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78323</link>
    <description>Finalisation of provisional assessment must follow the relevant return period for duty accounting, not a year-long block basis. The Tribunal rejected netting excess and short payments across all clearances for the entire period, holding that the assessee was not entitled to block-period adjustment. It also held that differential duty cannot be sustained when worked out invoice-wise without applying the correct month-wise or return-wise basis, so the computation had to be redone and reconsidered without duplication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:45:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 453 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78323</link>
      <description>Finalisation of provisional assessment must follow the relevant return period for duty accounting, not a year-long block basis. The Tribunal rejected netting excess and short payments across all clearances for the entire period, holding that the assessee was not entitled to block-period adjustment. It also held that differential duty cannot be sustained when worked out invoice-wise without applying the correct month-wise or return-wise basis, so the computation had to be redone and reconsidered without duplication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>