<?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 (1) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43324</link>
    <description>A Superintendent&#039;s communication concerning waste cotton yarn did not alter the approved classification and was treated as only an advisory intimation that duty would be leviable if unpaid. The letter warned of possible action, but it did not create an actual duty demand or direct immediate coercive recovery. On that basis, the communication was not a demand notice or an actionable recovery order, and there was no basis to treat it as quashable on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:30:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43324</link>
      <description>A Superintendent&#039;s communication concerning waste cotton yarn did not alter the approved classification and was treated as only an advisory intimation that duty would be leviable if unpaid. The letter warned of possible action, but it did not create an actual duty demand or direct immediate coercive recovery. On that basis, the communication was not a demand notice or an actionable recovery order, and there was no basis to treat it as quashable on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>