<?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>Provisional assessment of imported coke breeze time-barred under Regulation 5 (2018); belated finalisation invalidated, appeal dismissed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91950</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that the provisional assessment of imported coke breeze, effected after the statutory period prescribed by Regulation 5 of the 2018 Regulations, was time-barred; accordingly the finalization dated 22.07.2022 (for import on 11.02.2014) lacked temporal validity. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order that had set aside the belated finalization, and therefore denied Revenue&#039;s contention that the goods should be reclassified or deprived of exemption under the Notification entry. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed, with the consequence that the provisional assessment cannot be validated and the earlier determination remains binding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provisional assessment of imported coke breeze time-barred under Regulation 5 (2018); belated finalisation invalidated, appeal dismissed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91950</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that the provisional assessment of imported coke breeze, effected after the statutory period prescribed by Regulation 5 of the 2018 Regulations, was time-barred; accordingly the finalization dated 22.07.2022 (for import on 11.02.2014) lacked temporal validity. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order that had set aside the belated finalization, and therefore denied Revenue&#039;s contention that the goods should be reclassified or deprived of exemption under the Notification entry. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed, with the consequence that the provisional assessment cannot be validated and the earlier determination remains binding.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>