<?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 (12) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89492</link>
    <description>Notification No. 206/63 granted exemption only for specified duty-paid inputs and old or used re-rollable scrap. Imported iron and steel bars and rods did not fall within those covered inputs, and payment of countervailing duty on the imports did not expand the notification&#039;s scope, so the exemption was unavailable on the stated facts. On limitation, a show cause notice issued beyond six months could not rely on the extended period where no suppression was alleged and the relevant classification list claiming exemption had already been approved. The note therefore records a narrow construction of the exemption and the unavailability of the extended limitation period in the absence of suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:42:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89492</link>
      <description>Notification No. 206/63 granted exemption only for specified duty-paid inputs and old or used re-rollable scrap. Imported iron and steel bars and rods did not fall within those covered inputs, and payment of countervailing duty on the imports did not expand the notification&#039;s scope, so the exemption was unavailable on the stated facts. On limitation, a show cause notice issued beyond six months could not rely on the extended period where no suppression was alleged and the relevant classification list claiming exemption had already been approved. The note therefore records a narrow construction of the exemption and the unavailability of the extended limitation period in the absence of suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>