<?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>2000 (8) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45478</link>
    <description>An appealable classification order attains finality if not challenged in the prescribed appellate hierarchy, and that finality cannot be defeated by invoking refund proceedings under Rule 11. The refund remedy operates within the statutory scheme of adjudication and appeal, so it cannot be used to reopen the correctness of an unappealed classification decision. Because classification directly affects levy and collection of duty, allowing collateral challenge would undermine the appellate structure and certainty in duty administration. The assessee was therefore barred from assailing the classification indirectly in refund proceedings, and the contrary view was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 09:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45478</link>
      <description>An appealable classification order attains finality if not challenged in the prescribed appellate hierarchy, and that finality cannot be defeated by invoking refund proceedings under Rule 11. The refund remedy operates within the statutory scheme of adjudication and appeal, so it cannot be used to reopen the correctness of an unappealed classification decision. Because classification directly affects levy and collection of duty, allowing collateral challenge would undermine the appellate structure and certainty in duty administration. The assessee was therefore barred from assailing the classification indirectly in refund proceedings, and the contrary view was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>