<?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>1989 (8) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80169</link>
    <description>The excise adjustment scheme required the department to reconcile duty assessed with duty actually paid and to net off excess payment against short payment where both could arise in the same period. A separate refund claim was not necessary to defeat the adjustment mechanism, and the department had to examine the overall duty position rather than refuse set-off automatically. The limitation objection also failed because the relevant assessments were provisional, so the adjustment claim was not barred as a time-time refund claim. The resulting position was that excess duty could be adjusted against the demand for underpayment, subject to computation of the net duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:54:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80169</link>
      <description>The excise adjustment scheme required the department to reconcile duty assessed with duty actually paid and to net off excess payment against short payment where both could arise in the same period. A separate refund claim was not necessary to defeat the adjustment mechanism, and the department had to examine the overall duty position rather than refuse set-off automatically. The limitation objection also failed because the relevant assessments were provisional, so the adjustment claim was not barred as a time-time refund claim. The resulting position was that excess duty could be adjusted against the demand for underpayment, subject to computation of the net duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>