<?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>1991 (1) TMI 137 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42866</link>
    <description>Where excise goods were cleared on provisional price lists against bonds pending later verification, the levy was treated as not finally assessed in law. The demand for differential duty therefore fell under the residuary recovery provision, Rule 10A, rather than Rule 10, which applies to short levy arising from error or misstatement in a completed assessment. On that basis, the later demand was held legally sustainable and within time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 137 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42866</link>
      <description>Where excise goods were cleared on provisional price lists against bonds pending later verification, the levy was treated as not finally assessed in law. The demand for differential duty therefore fell under the residuary recovery provision, Rule 10A, rather than Rule 10, which applies to short levy arising from error or misstatement in a completed assessment. On that basis, the later demand was held legally sustainable and within time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>