<?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>1990 (9) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42827</link>
    <description>Recovery of excise duty short levied under Rule 10A required prior service of a notice specifying the amount recoverable and calling for a show-cause response. As no such notice had been served before the recovery direction, the statutory precondition was not met and the demand could not be sustained, regardless of the underlying classification dispute. The excise authorities&#039; orders were therefore liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:33:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42827</link>
      <description>Recovery of excise duty short levied under Rule 10A required prior service of a notice specifying the amount recoverable and calling for a show-cause response. As no such notice had been served before the recovery direction, the statutory precondition was not met and the demand could not be sustained, regardless of the underlying classification dispute. The excise authorities&#039; orders were therefore liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>