<?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>2005 (7) TMI 263 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54881</link>
    <description>Clearances treated as provisional assessment where the assessee requested provisional treatment, executed the prescribed bond, furnished bank guarantees, and the RT-12 returns recorded provisional assessment pending finalisation. On that basis, duty recovery fell within the finalisation machinery under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and a separate notice under Section 11A was not required. The record was found sufficient to show compliance with the provisional assessment procedure and consistency with the earlier directions and finalisation process. The demand was therefore validly confirmed and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:32:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 263 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54881</link>
      <description>Clearances treated as provisional assessment where the assessee requested provisional treatment, executed the prescribed bond, furnished bank guarantees, and the RT-12 returns recorded provisional assessment pending finalisation. On that basis, duty recovery fell within the finalisation machinery under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and a separate notice under Section 11A was not required. The record was found sufficient to show compliance with the provisional assessment procedure and consistency with the earlier directions and finalisation process. The demand was therefore validly confirmed and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>