<?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 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85018</link>
    <description>Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise law applies only where suppression of facts is wilful and intended to evade duty. Where samples and test reports were already available to the department, including material showing purity above 95%, concealment was not established and the ingredient of intent to evade was absent. On those facts, the extended period was unavailable and the demand was barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:17:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85018</link>
      <description>Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise law applies only where suppression of facts is wilful and intended to evade duty. Where samples and test reports were already available to the department, including material showing purity above 95%, concealment was not established and the ingredient of intent to evade was absent. On those facts, the extended period was unavailable and the demand was barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>