<?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>1998 (3) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88549</link>
    <description>Duty demands and penalty were held barred by limitation because the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the extended period could not be invoked. The allegation of suppression failed, as the nondisclosure related to Government notifications, and such notifications could not be treated as facts suppressed by the assessee for the purpose of extension of time. The impugned order was set aside on limitation grounds, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:13:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88549</link>
      <description>Duty demands and penalty were held barred by limitation because the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the extended period could not be invoked. The allegation of suppression failed, as the nondisclosure related to Government notifications, and such notifications could not be treated as facts suppressed by the assessee for the purpose of extension of time. The impugned order was set aside on limitation grounds, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>