<?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>1997 (3) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44532</link>
    <description>A classification list cannot be retrospectively altered to the assessee&#039;s detriment unless a proper show cause notice and effective opportunity of hearing are given. The Supreme Court held that the earlier binding judgment had already quashed the modification of the classification list, so the later authority could not treat that order as subsisting or sustain a demand for the earlier period. The retrospective classification change and consequent demand were therefore invalid, and the decision favoured the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83061" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44532</link>
      <description>A classification list cannot be retrospectively altered to the assessee&#039;s detriment unless a proper show cause notice and effective opportunity of hearing are given. The Supreme Court held that the earlier binding judgment had already quashed the modification of the classification list, so the later authority could not treat that order as subsisting or sustain a demand for the earlier period. The retrospective classification change and consequent demand were therefore invalid, and the decision favoured the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>