<?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>2016 (11) TMI 14 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333996</link>
    <description>On finalisation of provisional assessments under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, excess duty paid during the provisional period may be adjusted against duty short-paid, rather than being first routed through a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal followed its earlier view in the assessee&#039;s own case and accepted the later majority position that such set-off is permissible at the stage of finalisation. The Revenue&#039;s objection that refund proceedings and unjust enrichment had to be examined first was rejected, and the orders allowing adjustment were affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 14 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333996</link>
      <description>On finalisation of provisional assessments under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, excess duty paid during the provisional period may be adjusted against duty short-paid, rather than being first routed through a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal followed its earlier view in the assessee&#039;s own case and accepted the later majority position that such set-off is permissible at the stage of finalisation. The Revenue&#039;s objection that refund proceedings and unjust enrichment had to be examined first was rejected, and the orders allowing adjustment were affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>