<?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>2018 (9) TMI 644 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366908</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the assessments for the relevant period were provisional was treated as a factual conclusion based on the record and as a possible view of the material, with no perversity shown. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose for interference. Accepting provisional assessment also supported the view that no penalty or confiscation could be imposed, so the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:17:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 644 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366908</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the assessments for the relevant period were provisional was treated as a factual conclusion based on the record and as a possible view of the material, with no perversity shown. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose for interference. Accepting provisional assessment also supported the view that no penalty or confiscation could be imposed, so the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>