<?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>2009 (3) TMI 392 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75475</link>
    <description>A show cause notice invoking the extended limitation period for alleged diversion of imported crude oil failed because the department&#039;s own officers had visited the unit, verified declarations, examined the matter at hierarchy level, and cancelled the bonds after being satisfied that the conditions were met. On those facts, suppression could not be inferred merely from discrepancies in the assessee&#039;s records, and any allegation of longer limitation based on suppression required pleading collusion and proceeding against the concerned officers as well. As that was not done, the notice was defective, the extended period was unavailable, and the demands and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 392 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75475</link>
      <description>A show cause notice invoking the extended limitation period for alleged diversion of imported crude oil failed because the department&#039;s own officers had visited the unit, verified declarations, examined the matter at hierarchy level, and cancelled the bonds after being satisfied that the conditions were met. On those facts, suppression could not be inferred merely from discrepancies in the assessee&#039;s records, and any allegation of longer limitation based on suppression required pleading collusion and proceeding against the concerned officers as well. As that was not done, the notice was defective, the extended period was unavailable, and the demands and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>