<?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 349 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88783</link>
    <description>Full disclosure of the product&#039;s composition, manufacturing process, end-use and technical literature defeated any allegation of suppression or deliberate misdeclaration, so the extended period of limitation under excise law was not available. An earlier classification list had already been approved after departmental chemical verification, and the later dispute arose only from a subsequent opinion rather than any conclusive test withheld from the assessees. The demand, having been raised beyond the normal limitation period, was therefore unsustainable on limitation alone, and the accompanying penalty also fell.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:45:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 349 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88783</link>
      <description>Full disclosure of the product&#039;s composition, manufacturing process, end-use and technical literature defeated any allegation of suppression or deliberate misdeclaration, so the extended period of limitation under excise law was not available. An earlier classification list had already been approved after departmental chemical verification, and the later dispute arose only from a subsequent opinion rather than any conclusive test withheld from the assessees. The demand, having been raised beyond the normal limitation period, was therefore unsustainable on limitation alone, and the accompanying penalty also fell.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>