<?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>1995 (3) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84037</link>
    <description>Disclosure of the relevant goods in classification lists, when checked and endorsed by departmental officers, defeated the allegation of suppression and clandestine removal. On that factual basis, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the premise of concealment was absent. As the foundation for the extended period failed, the penalty imposed on the same allegation also could not survive and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:30:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84037</link>
      <description>Disclosure of the relevant goods in classification lists, when checked and endorsed by departmental officers, defeated the allegation of suppression and clandestine removal. On that factual basis, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the premise of concealment was absent. As the foundation for the extended period failed, the penalty imposed on the same allegation also could not survive and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>