<?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 (8) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90044</link>
    <description>Where classification lists had been filed and approved from time to time, and the item and unit of assessment were disclosed, there was no material of mala fide suppression or misstatement. On those facts, only the normal period of limitation was available to the Department, so the demand could not survive beyond that period. The Tribunal also found no factual basis to sustain penalty, as the circumstances did not justify penal action. The impugned orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:02:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90044</link>
      <description>Where classification lists had been filed and approved from time to time, and the item and unit of assessment were disclosed, there was no material of mala fide suppression or misstatement. On those facts, only the normal period of limitation was available to the Department, so the demand could not survive beyond that period. The Tribunal also found no factual basis to sustain penalty, as the circumstances did not justify penal action. The impugned orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>