<?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 (5) TMI 902 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99745</link>
    <description>Where assessments remained provisional and had not been finalised by the proper officer, supplementary bills showing escalation price did not by themselves justify immediate recovery of differential duty. The escalated amount was yet to be realised and was to be taken into account on finalisation of assessment. On that basis, the duty demand was held premature and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:29:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 902 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99745</link>
      <description>Where assessments remained provisional and had not been finalised by the proper officer, supplementary bills showing escalation price did not by themselves justify immediate recovery of differential duty. The escalated amount was yet to be realised and was to be taken into account on finalisation of assessment. On that basis, the duty demand was held premature and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>