<?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 218 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82228</link>
    <description>A valid show cause notice was required before adjudication when the original notice had been displaced by an appellate order. A later corrigendum could not sustain a new allegation of suppression or extend limitation because that ground was not part of the original notice; if suppression was to be relied upon, a fresh notice was necessary. On the facts recorded, most of the demand was also time barred. The demand based on the substituted allegation was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:41:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82228</link>
      <description>A valid show cause notice was required before adjudication when the original notice had been displaced by an appellate order. A later corrigendum could not sustain a new allegation of suppression or extend limitation because that ground was not part of the original notice; if suppression was to be relied upon, a fresh notice was necessary. On the facts recorded, most of the demand was also time barred. The demand based on the substituted allegation was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>