<?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 (12) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84760</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked where permission to work under Rule 56C had already been granted, the classification list was filed during that permission, and the department was aware of the relevant facts. Approval of the classification list could not later be followed by an allegation of suppression or misstatement on the same record, because the ingredients for extended limitation were absent. The demand was therefore time-barred and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:23:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84760</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation under Section 11A could not be invoked where permission to work under Rule 56C had already been granted, the classification list was filed during that permission, and the department was aware of the relevant facts. Approval of the classification list could not later be followed by an allegation of suppression or misstatement on the same record, because the ingredients for extended limitation were absent. The demand was therefore time-barred and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>