<?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 (12) TMI 302 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106934</link>
    <description>A pre-deposit made during appellate proceedings was adjusted while computing duty arrears under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and that adjustment became final once the assessee voluntarily opted for settlement and obtained relief on that basis. Amounts already paid or deposited are treated under the scheme as payments towards the disputed duty, penalty, fine or interest, with only the balance counted as arrears for settlement. The assessee could not reopen the settled computation or claim refund of the sum appropriated in determining scheme liability. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable, and its rejection was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:09:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 302 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106934</link>
      <description>A pre-deposit made during appellate proceedings was adjusted while computing duty arrears under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and that adjustment became final once the assessee voluntarily opted for settlement and obtained relief on that basis. Amounts already paid or deposited are treated under the scheme as payments towards the disputed duty, penalty, fine or interest, with only the balance counted as arrears for settlement. The assessee could not reopen the settled computation or claim refund of the sum appropriated in determining scheme liability. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable, and its rejection was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>