<?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>2007 (2) TMI 109 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1969</link>
    <description>Refund arising from provisional assessment could not be entertained where the final assessment had been completed and no appeal was filed against that final order. The goods were provisionally assessed, then finalised with a direction to deposit differential duty on depot sales. Because the final assessment did not accept the assessee&#039;s claim of excess duty payment, the later refund application could not be used to indirectly challenge that concluded assessment. The governing principle is that a final assessment order must be contested in the prescribed appellate manner and cannot be bypassed through refund proceedings. The refund claim was therefore held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 109 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1969</link>
      <description>Refund arising from provisional assessment could not be entertained where the final assessment had been completed and no appeal was filed against that final order. The goods were provisionally assessed, then finalised with a direction to deposit differential duty on depot sales. Because the final assessment did not accept the assessee&#039;s claim of excess duty payment, the later refund application could not be used to indirectly challenge that concluded assessment. The governing principle is that a final assessment order must be contested in the prescribed appellate manner and cannot be bypassed through refund proceedings. The refund claim was therefore held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>