<?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>2002 (11) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46358</link>
    <description>A duty demand under excise law cannot be sustained without compliance with the mandatory show cause notice requirement, and ordinary correspondence or an order cannot replace that statutory step. Provisional assessment or provisional clearance can justify a different limitation position only when the record shows a genuine provisional procedure, including the relevant order and payment on that basis; absent such material, it does not apply. An interim High Court stay of a revision order, without a restraint on issuance of notice, does not attract exclusion of time under the limitation provision. The demands were therefore barred by limitation and set aside, and the classification issue was left unexamined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 10:28:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46358</link>
      <description>A duty demand under excise law cannot be sustained without compliance with the mandatory show cause notice requirement, and ordinary correspondence or an order cannot replace that statutory step. Provisional assessment or provisional clearance can justify a different limitation position only when the record shows a genuine provisional procedure, including the relevant order and payment on that basis; absent such material, it does not apply. An interim High Court stay of a revision order, without a restraint on issuance of notice, does not attract exclusion of time under the limitation provision. The demands were therefore barred by limitation and set aside, and the classification issue was left unexamined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>