<?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>2000 (12) TMI 332 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95260</link>
    <description>Duty paid during finalisation of a classification list or price list may be capable of being treated as provisional, and the earlier view limiting provisional payment to cases under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not accepted. The document also notes that the reach of Samrat International was in issue, specifically whether its principle applies only to refund claims or also to demands. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration of these questions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:45:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 332 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95260</link>
      <description>Duty paid during finalisation of a classification list or price list may be capable of being treated as provisional, and the earlier view limiting provisional payment to cases under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not accepted. The document also notes that the reach of Samrat International was in issue, specifically whether its principle applies only to refund claims or also to demands. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration of these questions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>