<?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>1996 (7) TMI 391 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90337</link>
    <description>Material disclosure to the Department of the goods supplied, their separate pricing, and their treatment in invoices and monthly returns defeated any allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement. On those facts, the foundation for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 failed, so the duty demand was time-barred and the penalty was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:10:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 391 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90337</link>
      <description>Material disclosure to the Department of the goods supplied, their separate pricing, and their treatment in invoices and monthly returns defeated any allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement. On those facts, the foundation for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 failed, so the duty demand was time-barred and the penalty was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>