<?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 (7) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90143</link>
    <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where the record showed a bona fide technical dispute between the parties and the Department over the actual loss of synthesis gas, so wilful suppression was not established. Duty liability on the unaccounted loss of gas returned from the heavy water plant was nevertheless recognised against the consignor, because the supply-and-return arrangement contemplated a process loss and the facts differed from cases of mere non-accounted clearances. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period only, with the exact duty to be recomputed for the admissible period after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:37:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90143</link>
      <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where the record showed a bona fide technical dispute between the parties and the Department over the actual loss of synthesis gas, so wilful suppression was not established. Duty liability on the unaccounted loss of gas returned from the heavy water plant was nevertheless recognised against the consignor, because the supply-and-return arrangement contemplated a process loss and the facts differed from cases of mere non-accounted clearances. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period only, with the exact duty to be recomputed for the admissible period after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>