<?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>1992 (12) TMI 165 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84213</link>
    <description>Extended limitation was unavailable where clearances were made on regular gate passes at nil duty and the relevant facts were disclosed in RT 12 returns. Since the department was already aware of the clearances, the non-issuance of demand within time could not be attributed solely to suppression by the assessee. On that factual basis, the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained by invoking the extended period, and the appeal was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:48:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 165 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84213</link>
      <description>Extended limitation was unavailable where clearances were made on regular gate passes at nil duty and the relevant facts were disclosed in RT 12 returns. Since the department was already aware of the clearances, the non-issuance of demand within time could not be attributed solely to suppression by the assessee. On that factual basis, the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained by invoking the extended period, and the appeal was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>