<?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>1995 (8) TMI 323 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189792</link>
    <description>Under the special RT-12 assessment procedure, duty on yarn captively consumed in the same factory could be assessed on the basis of returns already filed by the assessee, and no prior show cause notice was required where the quantity and rate were undisputed and the exercise was only arithmetical. Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held inapplicable because the matter arose from assessment under Rule 173-I rather than from unassessed duty requiring notice under that provision. The interim order did not suspend the return-filing or assessment process, so the demand was valid and the refund direction was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:43:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 323 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189792</link>
      <description>Under the special RT-12 assessment procedure, duty on yarn captively consumed in the same factory could be assessed on the basis of returns already filed by the assessee, and no prior show cause notice was required where the quantity and rate were undisputed and the exercise was only arithmetical. Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held inapplicable because the matter arose from assessment under Rule 173-I rather than from unassessed duty requiring notice under that provision. The interim order did not suspend the return-filing or assessment process, so the demand was valid and the refund direction was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>