<?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 (8) TMI 163 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43048</link>
    <description>An approved excise classification list is not treated as immutable; where goods have been wrongly classified, the proper officer may initiate proceedings to correct the classification and recover duty not levied or short-levied, subject to notice and hearing. The power to recover duty under the relevant provision necessarily includes the power to question and modify an erroneous approved classification list. The Board may issue instructions to secure uniformity in classification and levy, but not to dictate a particular assessment or interfere with quasi-judicial decision-making. On the stated facts, the earlier approval did not bar fresh proceedings, and the show cause notice was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:01:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 163 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43048</link>
      <description>An approved excise classification list is not treated as immutable; where goods have been wrongly classified, the proper officer may initiate proceedings to correct the classification and recover duty not levied or short-levied, subject to notice and hearing. The power to recover duty under the relevant provision necessarily includes the power to question and modify an erroneous approved classification list. The Board may issue instructions to secure uniformity in classification and levy, but not to dictate a particular assessment or interfere with quasi-judicial decision-making. On the stated facts, the earlier approval did not bar fresh proceedings, and the show cause notice was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43048</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>