<?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 (6) TMI 173 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88902</link>
    <description>A demand for reversal of Modvat credit was treated as time-barred for the portion raised beyond six months, because the relevant facts had already been disclosed in the RT 12 returns and were within the Department&#039;s knowledge. Mere non-payment of the amount reflected in the assessment memorandum did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period. As the larger part of the demand failed on limitation, the penalty was reduced correspondingly. The demand for the period beyond six months was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:17:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 173 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88902</link>
      <description>A demand for reversal of Modvat credit was treated as time-barred for the portion raised beyond six months, because the relevant facts had already been disclosed in the RT 12 returns and were within the Department&#039;s knowledge. Mere non-payment of the amount reflected in the assessment memorandum did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period. As the larger part of the demand failed on limitation, the penalty was reduced correspondingly. The demand for the period beyond six months was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>