<?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>1989 (4) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74590</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for central excise demand was unavailable where the show cause notice alleged only short levy from incorrect set-off and did not expressly plead fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or misdeclaration. The notice also failed to set out supporting facts from which deliberate conduct could be inferred. As the relevant declarations and factory particulars had been filed and the department was aware of the manufacturing arrangement, the necessary ingredients for invoking the extended period were absent. The duty demand beyond six months was therefore barred, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:23:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74590</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for central excise demand was unavailable where the show cause notice alleged only short levy from incorrect set-off and did not expressly plead fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or misdeclaration. The notice also failed to set out supporting facts from which deliberate conduct could be inferred. As the relevant declarations and factory particulars had been filed and the department was aware of the manufacturing arrangement, the necessary ingredients for invoking the extended period were absent. The duty demand beyond six months was therefore barred, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>