<?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>1986 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72666</link>
    <description>Amounts recovered as interest under Rule 49A were treated as distinct from duty of excise, so the limitation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 did not govern recovery of short-paid interest. Where no specific excise-law time limit applied to such non-duty recovery, the general law of limitation could be applied. On the facts, the notice having been issued beyond three years from the short-payment, the demand was held time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 11:35:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72666</link>
      <description>Amounts recovered as interest under Rule 49A were treated as distinct from duty of excise, so the limitation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 did not govern recovery of short-paid interest. Where no specific excise-law time limit applied to such non-duty recovery, the general law of limitation could be applied. On the facts, the notice having been issued beyond three years from the short-payment, the demand was held time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>