<?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 (11) TMI 198 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50096</link>
    <description>Provisional assessments may be finalised by the proper officer after reasonable enquiry when valuation remains pending, and technical objections do not invalidate the finalisation if the order substantially discloses its basis. The absence of a specific price-list number, alleged vagueness, and claims that the order was non-speaking were treated as technical defects because the order clearly showed that provisional assessments were being concluded. The pending collateral show-cause notice did not displace the finalisation. The challenge to the order approving the provisional price lists and directing final assessment therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:08:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 198 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50096</link>
      <description>Provisional assessments may be finalised by the proper officer after reasonable enquiry when valuation remains pending, and technical objections do not invalidate the finalisation if the order substantially discloses its basis. The absence of a specific price-list number, alleged vagueness, and claims that the order was non-speaking were treated as technical defects because the order clearly showed that provisional assessments were being concluded. The pending collateral show-cause notice did not displace the finalisation. The challenge to the order approving the provisional price lists and directing final assessment therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>