<?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>1996 (10) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86025</link>
    <description>The demand for reversal of Modvat credit was time-barred because the assessee had disclosed the relevant classification lists, samples, labels and cartons, and the department had approved them on that material. The assessee&#039;s classification was based on a bona fide understanding of the prevailing legal position on patent or proprietary medicines, so suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty could not be attributed. As a result, the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and the demand could only have been issued within the normal period. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:52:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86025</link>
      <description>The demand for reversal of Modvat credit was time-barred because the assessee had disclosed the relevant classification lists, samples, labels and cartons, and the department had approved them on that material. The assessee&#039;s classification was based on a bona fide understanding of the prevailing legal position on patent or proprietary medicines, so suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty could not be attributed. As a result, the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and the demand could only have been issued within the normal period. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>