https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46591 A communication issued after hearing the assessee and determining the balance duty payable was treated as an adjudication and demand order under central excise law, even though it was not in the prescribed format. The court held that substance prevailed over form because the officer had considered the representation and fixed the liability. It also held that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 could not be invoked where no appeal, reference, writ petition, or revision was pending on the relevant date. As the demand had already been adjudicated and no proceeding was pending, the statutory conditions for the Scheme were not met, and rejection of the declaration was sustained. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46591 A communication issued after hearing the assessee and determining the balance duty payable was treated as an adjudication and demand order under central excise law, even though it was not in the prescribed format. The court held that substance prevailed over form because the officer had considered the representation and fixed the liability. It also held that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 could not be invoked where no appeal, reference, writ petition, or revision was pending on the relevant date. As the demand had already been adjudicated and no proceeding was pending, the statutory conditions for the Scheme were not met, and rejection of the declaration was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46591