<?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 (12) TMI 1347 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270043</link>
    <description>On finalisation of provisional assessment, excess duty paid may be adjusted against short payment rather than being forced into a separate refund route where the governing provisional assessment framework and binding precedent support such adjustment. The Tribunal noted that the same controversy had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s own earlier period, and followed that precedent. The order refusing adjustment was therefore held unsustainable, the appeal succeeded, and consequential relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1347 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270043</link>
      <description>On finalisation of provisional assessment, excess duty paid may be adjusted against short payment rather than being forced into a separate refund route where the governing provisional assessment framework and binding precedent support such adjustment. The Tribunal noted that the same controversy had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s own earlier period, and followed that precedent. The order refusing adjustment was therefore held unsustainable, the appeal succeeded, and consequential relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>