<?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>1991 (8) TMI 180 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81435</link>
    <description>Limitation under the extended period could not be justified where the only alleged suppression was non-disclosure of an earlier refund claim already within the department&#039;s knowledge and sanctioned by the Assistant Collector. The analysis notes that the eligibility issue could have been examined when exemption was granted or when the refund was processed, so there was no discernible suppression of material particulars. On that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred and the assessee succeeded on limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:03:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 180 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81435</link>
      <description>Limitation under the extended period could not be justified where the only alleged suppression was non-disclosure of an earlier refund claim already within the department&#039;s knowledge and sanctioned by the Assistant Collector. The analysis notes that the eligibility issue could have been examined when exemption was granted or when the refund was processed, so there was no discernible suppression of material particulars. On that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred and the assessee succeeded on limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>