<?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 (12) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87678</link>
    <description>Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available because the show cause notice was issued months after the sample and test report, without any allegation or material of suppression. The goods were cleared with departmental knowledge, the assessments were not provisional, and there was no mala fide misdescription in the classification list. On these facts, the demand failed on limitation and the impugned order was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:58:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87678</link>
      <description>Extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available because the show cause notice was issued months after the sample and test report, without any allegation or material of suppression. The goods were cleared with departmental knowledge, the assessments were not provisional, and there was no mala fide misdescription in the classification list. On these facts, the demand failed on limitation and the impugned order was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>