<?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 (1) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45480</link>
    <description>Excise duty assessed on the basis of approved price lists or classification lists cannot be reopened as a short levy unless the approval is first challenged by show-cause notice. Where the approved classification remains unchallenged, the assessment is treated as the correct levy, differential duty cannot be recovered as short levy, and Rule 10 does not apply. On that footing, the demand for differential duty was held not sustainable and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:23:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45480</link>
      <description>Excise duty assessed on the basis of approved price lists or classification lists cannot be reopened as a short levy unless the approval is first challenged by show-cause notice. Where the approved classification remains unchallenged, the assessment is treated as the correct levy, differential duty cannot be recovered as short levy, and Rule 10 does not apply. On that footing, the demand for differential duty was held not sustainable and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>