<?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 (8) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74962</link>
    <description>Approved classification lists and departmental knowledge can defeat reliance on the extended limitation period under section 11A. The goods were described as steel ingots including steel melting scrap, and the classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector. The record showed that production of runners and risers was within the department&#039;s knowledge from the outset, and officers were expected to make proper inquiry before granting approval under rule 173B. On those facts, there was no deliberate suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended period could not be invoked and the demand beyond six months was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:23:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74962</link>
      <description>Approved classification lists and departmental knowledge can defeat reliance on the extended limitation period under section 11A. The goods were described as steel ingots including steel melting scrap, and the classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector. The record showed that production of runners and risers was within the department&#039;s knowledge from the outset, and officers were expected to make proper inquiry before granting approval under rule 173B. On those facts, there was no deliberate suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended period could not be invoked and the demand beyond six months was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>