<?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 (11) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88052</link>
    <description>The extended limitation period under the excise provision could not be invoked where the show cause notice was confined to duty computation and contained no allegation of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty. An incorrect method of duty calculation, by itself, did not satisfy the statutory conditions for the longer limitation period, so the demand was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:06:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88052</link>
      <description>The extended limitation period under the excise provision could not be invoked where the show cause notice was confined to duty computation and contained no allegation of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty. An incorrect method of duty calculation, by itself, did not satisfy the statutory conditions for the longer limitation period, so the demand was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>