<?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>1994 (9) TMI 198 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83744</link>
    <description>A show cause notice invoking the extended limitation period under Section 11A must specifically plead the factual basis for that invocation, including the relevant period of alleged clandestine removal. Where the notice refers only to inspection findings of shortage and excess and omits that essential allegation, the extended demand cannot be sustained and is treated as illegal and void. Separately, negligence in maintenance of accounts may justify penalty, and a reduced penalty may be sustained where no basis exists to interfere with the appellate reduction. The duty demand was set aside, while the reduced penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:40:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 198 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83744</link>
      <description>A show cause notice invoking the extended limitation period under Section 11A must specifically plead the factual basis for that invocation, including the relevant period of alleged clandestine removal. Where the notice refers only to inspection findings of shortage and excess and omits that essential allegation, the extended demand cannot be sustained and is treated as illegal and void. Separately, negligence in maintenance of accounts may justify penalty, and a reduced penalty may be sustained where no basis exists to interfere with the appellate reduction. The duty demand was set aside, while the reduced penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>