<?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>1999 (9) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45246</link>
    <description>An approved excise classification list remains operative until it is validly modified, and duty assessed on that basis is the correct levy for the period of approval. Rule 10 cannot be used to reopen the approved classification retrospectively or to treat a later reclassification as a prior short levy recoverable for the earlier period. Reopening of the classification must be done under the provision governing modification of classification lists, not through the recovery rule. The later contrary three-Judge view was held not to state the law correctly, and the earlier period&#039;s differential duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 20:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45246</link>
      <description>An approved excise classification list remains operative until it is validly modified, and duty assessed on that basis is the correct levy for the period of approval. Rule 10 cannot be used to reopen the approved classification retrospectively or to treat a later reclassification as a prior short levy recoverable for the earlier period. Reopening of the classification must be done under the provision governing modification of classification lists, not through the recovery rule. The later contrary three-Judge view was held not to state the law correctly, and the earlier period&#039;s differential duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>