<?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>1997 (4) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86671</link>
    <description>A demand for money credit under an excise notification was held time-barred because the show cause notice was issued more than six months after the relevant period. The record disclosed no suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, and the department already knew the material facts, including receipt of ethyl alcohol from another unit. As no evidence showed that information had been withheld, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86671</link>
      <description>A demand for money credit under an excise notification was held time-barred because the show cause notice was issued more than six months after the relevant period. The record disclosed no suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, and the department already knew the material facts, including receipt of ethyl alcohol from another unit. As no evidence showed that information had been withheld, the extended limitation period was unavailable and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>