<?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>1993 (1) TMI 178 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83665</link>
    <description>Returned duty-paid goods were disclosed to the department through D-3 declarations as goods for remixing and repacking, and the reprocessing activity, nil-duty clearances, and RT 12 finalisation were all within departmental knowledge. On those facts, suppression of material facts was not established, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The show cause notice was therefore time-barred, and the resulting demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:08:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 178 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83665</link>
      <description>Returned duty-paid goods were disclosed to the department through D-3 declarations as goods for remixing and repacking, and the reprocessing activity, nil-duty clearances, and RT 12 finalisation were all within departmental knowledge. On those facts, suppression of material facts was not established, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The show cause notice was therefore time-barred, and the resulting demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>