<?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>2010 (3) TMI 593 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78675</link>
    <description>Inter-departmental letters finalising a provisional assessment, without formal adjudication of the dispute or determination of rights and liabilities, were not appealable orders. The communications were issued in the assessee&#039;s absence and merely directed finalisation of the assessment subject to quantification of differential duty on depot sale details. Because they lacked the character of a legal order deciding the controversy, the assessee was not required to file a separate appeal against them before challenging the refund-related proceedings. The Tribunal should have examined the dispute on merits rather than rejecting the appeal on maintainability, and the maintainability objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:15:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 593 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78675</link>
      <description>Inter-departmental letters finalising a provisional assessment, without formal adjudication of the dispute or determination of rights and liabilities, were not appealable orders. The communications were issued in the assessee&#039;s absence and merely directed finalisation of the assessment subject to quantification of differential duty on depot sale details. Because they lacked the character of a legal order deciding the controversy, the assessee was not required to file a separate appeal against them before challenging the refund-related proceedings. The Tribunal should have examined the dispute on merits rather than rejecting the appeal on maintainability, and the maintainability objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>