<?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>1996 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=725</link>
    <description>In provisional excise assessment under Rule 173-B and Rule 9-B, clearances of block boards were treated as provisional because the classification list was not finally approved and the RT-12 returns recorded provisional assessment. On finalisation, the differential duty became recoverable under the provisional assessment scheme without a separate notice under Section 11-A, because the amount paid remained provisional until adjustment after final assessment. A bank guarantee furnished against the duty liability was also held enforceable once the liability was finally determined, as no basis was shown to restrain invocation on grounds of arbitrariness or mala fides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=725</link>
      <description>In provisional excise assessment under Rule 173-B and Rule 9-B, clearances of block boards were treated as provisional because the classification list was not finally approved and the RT-12 returns recorded provisional assessment. On finalisation, the differential duty became recoverable under the provisional assessment scheme without a separate notice under Section 11-A, because the amount paid remained provisional until adjustment after final assessment. A bank guarantee furnished against the duty liability was also held enforceable once the liability was finally determined, as no basis was shown to restrain invocation on grounds of arbitrariness or mala fides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>