<?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>2014 (11) TMI 617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253300</link>
    <description>The Tribunal could not, for the first time in appeal, treat the bills of entry as provisionally assessed and on that basis reject the limitation plea under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Whether an assessment is provisional or final is a question of fact, and that factual basis was neither pleaded in the show cause notice nor decided in the order-in-original. The departmental case had proceeded on suppression and wilful misstatement under the proviso to Section 28(1), so the Tribunal introduced a new factual foundation not canvassed before the assessee. The rectification order did not cure the defect, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits without reference to provisional assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253300</link>
      <description>The Tribunal could not, for the first time in appeal, treat the bills of entry as provisionally assessed and on that basis reject the limitation plea under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Whether an assessment is provisional or final is a question of fact, and that factual basis was neither pleaded in the show cause notice nor decided in the order-in-original. The departmental case had proceeded on suppression and wilful misstatement under the proviso to Section 28(1), so the Tribunal introduced a new factual foundation not canvassed before the assessee. The rectification order did not cure the defect, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits without reference to provisional assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>