<?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>1999 (3) TMI 277 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92089</link>
    <description>Provisional excise assessment arises only when the prescribed procedure is strictly followed, including a specific order permitting provisional assessment and execution of the required bond or security. Mere pendency of classification list approval or an endorsement on RT-12 returns does not, by itself, make an assessment provisional. Where no such order was made and no bond was executed, the assessment remained final, so any differential duty demand had to be tested under the ordinary limitation period. On these facts, a demand issued beyond six months was barred by limitation, and the assessee&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:23:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 277 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92089</link>
      <description>Provisional excise assessment arises only when the prescribed procedure is strictly followed, including a specific order permitting provisional assessment and execution of the required bond or security. Mere pendency of classification list approval or an endorsement on RT-12 returns does not, by itself, make an assessment provisional. Where no such order was made and no bond was executed, the assessment remained final, so any differential duty demand had to be tested under the ordinary limitation period. On these facts, a demand issued beyond six months was barred by limitation, and the assessee&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>