<?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>1995 (4) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84174</link>
    <description>Provisional assessment under central excise applies only when the statutory procedure is consciously invoked, including a proper provisional order and compliance with the required formalities; it cannot be inferred merely because a later refund claim arises from an annual turnover-based exemption notification. On the refund limitation question under Section 11B, the members noted conflicting authorities on the relevant date for claims linked to annual value ceilings and therefore referred that issue to a Larger Bench. The provisional-assessment point was rejected, while the limitation controversy remained open for further determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:55:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84174</link>
      <description>Provisional assessment under central excise applies only when the statutory procedure is consciously invoked, including a proper provisional order and compliance with the required formalities; it cannot be inferred merely because a later refund claim arises from an annual turnover-based exemption notification. On the refund limitation question under Section 11B, the members noted conflicting authorities on the relevant date for claims linked to annual value ceilings and therefore referred that issue to a Larger Bench. The provisional-assessment point was rejected, while the limitation controversy remained open for further determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>