<?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 (9) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87285</link>
    <description>A show cause notice for differential excise duty was examined on limitation, with the relevant date taken as the date of short payment or, where no payment was made, the date of filing of the RT-12 return. On that basis, the demand was confined to the period in which duty had become payable but remained unpaid, and the notice fell within six months of its issuance. The limitation objection therefore failed and the notice was treated as within time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:23:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87285</link>
      <description>A show cause notice for differential excise duty was examined on limitation, with the relevant date taken as the date of short payment or, where no payment was made, the date of filing of the RT-12 return. On that basis, the demand was confined to the period in which duty had become payable but remained unpaid, and the notice fell within six months of its issuance. The limitation objection therefore failed and the notice was treated as within time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>