<?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>1989 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84966</link>
    <description>The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as amended from 27-12-1985, required a notice invoking the extended limitation period to be issued by the Collector of Central Excise. A show cause notice issued by the Superintendent instead did not satisfy that statutory requirement, so the notice was legally invalid and the proceedings based on it were liable to be set aside. The challenge therefore succeeded in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:54:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84966</link>
      <description>The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as amended from 27-12-1985, required a notice invoking the extended limitation period to be issued by the Collector of Central Excise. A show cause notice issued by the Superintendent instead did not satisfy that statutory requirement, so the notice was legally invalid and the proceedings based on it were liable to be set aside. The challenge therefore succeeded in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>