<?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>1976 (2) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41270</link>
    <description>Differential excise duty arising after final determination of assessable value following provisional clearances falls under the residuary recovery rule for incomplete assessment, rather than the short-levy limitation rule. Earlier clearances supported by AR 1 forms, a bond and provisional procedures did not amount to completed assessments. However, demands based on comparative data from other manufacturers and adverse inferences from invoices require disclosure of that material and a genuine opportunity to respond. Non-disclosure deprives the affected party of a fair hearing and vitiates the adjudication, so relief against the excise demands was sustained despite the recovery rule being applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:42:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (2) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41270</link>
      <description>Differential excise duty arising after final determination of assessable value following provisional clearances falls under the residuary recovery rule for incomplete assessment, rather than the short-levy limitation rule. Earlier clearances supported by AR 1 forms, a bond and provisional procedures did not amount to completed assessments. However, demands based on comparative data from other manufacturers and adverse inferences from invoices require disclosure of that material and a genuine opportunity to respond. Non-disclosure deprives the affected party of a fair hearing and vitiates the adjudication, so relief against the excise demands was sustained despite the recovery rule being applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>