<?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 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86927</link>
    <description>Extended limitation under section 11A was unavailable because the show-cause notice did not specifically allege suppression of facts, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement, and it did not invoke the proviso to justify the longer period. On that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred. The Tribunal also declined to refer a question on a limitation issue already settled by the Supreme Court, holding that no referable question of law survived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:57:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86927</link>
      <description>Extended limitation under section 11A was unavailable because the show-cause notice did not specifically allege suppression of facts, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement, and it did not invoke the proviso to justify the longer period. On that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred. The Tribunal also declined to refer a question on a limitation issue already settled by the Supreme Court, holding that no referable question of law survived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>