<?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>2004 (8) TMI 604 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115298</link>
    <description>On finalisation of provisional service tax assessment, adjustment was required to be made with reference to the tax finally payable in law, not the tax collected from customers, and the later Section 11D mechanism could not be applied retrospectively to the disputed period. Interest was not leviable for a provisional assessment period governed by an earlier regime, because the interest provision linked to provisional assessment applied prospectively from the later effective date. Where a cheque was deposited within time and not dishonoured, delayed bank clearance did not justify treating the payment as belated for interest purposes. The tax demand and associated interest demands were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 17:40:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 604 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115298</link>
      <description>On finalisation of provisional service tax assessment, adjustment was required to be made with reference to the tax finally payable in law, not the tax collected from customers, and the later Section 11D mechanism could not be applied retrospectively to the disputed period. Interest was not leviable for a provisional assessment period governed by an earlier regime, because the interest provision linked to provisional assessment applied prospectively from the later effective date. Where a cheque was deposited within time and not dishonoured, delayed bank clearance did not justify treating the payment as belated for interest purposes. The tax demand and associated interest demands were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>