<?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>1990 (5) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80663</link>
    <description>Customs classification that has attained finality for countervailing duty cannot be reopened by Central Excise authorities to deny consequential proforma credit under Rule 56A; the departmental reclassification was treated as beyond jurisdiction, and credit could not be withdrawn on that basis. A show cause notice issued beyond six months was also time-barred because extended limitation requires proved suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion, and the import records, bills of entry, D-3 forms and registers were already before the department. On the facts recorded, no material supported suppression or misdeclaration, so the demand failed on limitation as well.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:59:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (5) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80663</link>
      <description>Customs classification that has attained finality for countervailing duty cannot be reopened by Central Excise authorities to deny consequential proforma credit under Rule 56A; the departmental reclassification was treated as beyond jurisdiction, and credit could not be withdrawn on that basis. A show cause notice issued beyond six months was also time-barred because extended limitation requires proved suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion, and the import records, bills of entry, D-3 forms and registers were already before the department. On the facts recorded, no material supported suppression or misdeclaration, so the demand failed on limitation as well.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>