https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=828 The Tribunal rectified an error in the demand amount, ensuring it was correctly stated once. All important grounds were considered in the Final Order, addressing appellant's concerns. The proviso to Section 28(1) was found applicable, emphasizing revenue protection. Finalization of provisional assessment was justified due to forged DEPB scrips. The mutually exclusive nature of provisional assessment and demand under Section 28(1) proviso was upheld, supporting the recovery of legitimate dues owed to the Government. The Commissioner's decisions were affirmed for revenue protection. en-us Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=828 The Tribunal rectified an error in the demand amount, ensuring it was correctly stated once. All important grounds were considered in the Final Order, addressing appellant's concerns. The proviso to Section 28(1) was found applicable, emphasizing revenue protection. Finalization of provisional assessment was justified due to forged DEPB scrips. The mutually exclusive nature of provisional assessment and demand under Section 28(1) proviso was upheld, supporting the recovery of legitimate dues owed to the Government. The Commissioner's decisions were affirmed for revenue protection. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=828