<?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>2010 (5) TMI 245 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77749</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation under section 11A cannot be invoked unless the record establishes suppression of facts or mala fide conduct. Here, the assessee had disclosed the manufacturing activity, the nature of steam cleared outside the factory, the applicable tariff headings, the exemption notifications, and the reversal of credit. As the adjudicating authority did not address these disclosures and the legal position was then ambiguous, the Tribunal found that the conditions for extended limitation were not met. The demand was therefore barred by limitation, and the appeal failed because no substantial question of law arose from that factual finding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 245 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77749</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation under section 11A cannot be invoked unless the record establishes suppression of facts or mala fide conduct. Here, the assessee had disclosed the manufacturing activity, the nature of steam cleared outside the factory, the applicable tariff headings, the exemption notifications, and the reversal of credit. As the adjudicating authority did not address these disclosures and the legal position was then ambiguous, the Tribunal found that the conditions for extended limitation were not met. The demand was therefore barred by limitation, and the appeal failed because no substantial question of law arose from that factual finding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>