<?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 (9) TMI 841 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173203</link>
    <description>A provisional assessment under Rule 9B can be sustained where the proper officer expressly treats the assessment as provisional in the course of further enquiry on classification, even if a bond was not executed, provided the surrounding correspondence, re-examination and the assessee&#039;s request for correction support that characterisation. On that basis, duty liability may be finally adjusted on finalisation, and the limitation period for demanding differential duty under Section 11A runs from the date of such final adjustment rather than the original clearance date. The text also notes that prior rejection of the challenge to provisional assessment reinforced the demand&#039;s timeliness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:16:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 841 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173203</link>
      <description>A provisional assessment under Rule 9B can be sustained where the proper officer expressly treats the assessment as provisional in the course of further enquiry on classification, even if a bond was not executed, provided the surrounding correspondence, re-examination and the assessee&#039;s request for correction support that characterisation. On that basis, duty liability may be finally adjusted on finalisation, and the limitation period for demanding differential duty under Section 11A runs from the date of such final adjustment rather than the original clearance date. The text also notes that prior rejection of the challenge to provisional assessment reinforced the demand&#039;s timeliness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>