<?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 (12) TMI 418 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90443</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held in favor of the appellant in a Central Excise Tariff classification dispute. The appellant successfully argued against the imposition of a penalty due to an extended period of limitation. The Tribunal found that there was no suppression of facts as the nature of the goods had been previously disclosed to the Department. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed solely on the limitation issue, without addressing the merits of the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:18:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 418 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90443</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held in favor of the appellant in a Central Excise Tariff classification dispute. The appellant successfully argued against the imposition of a penalty due to an extended period of limitation. The Tribunal found that there was no suppression of facts as the nature of the goods had been previously disclosed to the Department. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed solely on the limitation issue, without addressing the merits of the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>