<?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>2015 (9) TMI 203 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263535</link>
    <description>A finalized assessment under Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 that was never challenged through the statutory appellate route cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings arising from a show cause notice. Where the assessee declared the assessable value, paid duty on that basis, and allowed the assessment to attain finality, the same value cannot later be redetermined to reduce differential duty liability under Notification No. 19/95-CE. The article states that the demand was consequential to the closed assessment, the challenge to differential duty was not maintainable, and the proper course was to contest the assessment itself through appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395818" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 203 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263535</link>
      <description>A finalized assessment under Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 that was never challenged through the statutory appellate route cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings arising from a show cause notice. Where the assessee declared the assessable value, paid duty on that basis, and allowed the assessment to attain finality, the same value cannot later be redetermined to reduce differential duty liability under Notification No. 19/95-CE. The article states that the demand was consequential to the closed assessment, the challenge to differential duty was not maintainable, and the proper course was to contest the assessment itself through appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>