<?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>2002 (4) TMI 774 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106270</link>
    <description>A duty demand based on ACP fixation was found unsustainable because the parameters used to determine the ACP did not conform to the applicable Notification. Once the underlying fixation was accepted as incorrect, the consequential demand could not stand as one authorised by law. The proper course was to set aside the existing determination and remit the matter for re-fixation of ACP in accordance with the Notification, followed by fresh computation of duty liability on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:01:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 774 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106270</link>
      <description>A duty demand based on ACP fixation was found unsustainable because the parameters used to determine the ACP did not conform to the applicable Notification. Once the underlying fixation was accepted as incorrect, the consequential demand could not stand as one authorised by law. The proper course was to set aside the existing determination and remit the matter for re-fixation of ACP in accordance with the Notification, followed by fresh computation of duty liability on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>