<?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 183 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86779</link>
    <description>In the absence of an express limitation period for recovery of money credit taken under the excise credit scheme, a reasonable time limit may be implied. The text treats the six-month period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as the appropriate benchmark on the facts discussed. Because the recovery notice was issued after that reasonable period had expired, the demand was treated as time-barred and unsustainable, and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:08:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 183 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86779</link>
      <description>In the absence of an express limitation period for recovery of money credit taken under the excise credit scheme, a reasonable time limit may be implied. The text treats the six-month period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as the appropriate benchmark on the facts discussed. Because the recovery notice was issued after that reasonable period had expired, the demand was treated as time-barred and unsustainable, and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>