<?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>1999 (5) TMI 130 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91020</link>
    <description>An approved classification list, accepted by the department after disclosure of the products, did not by itself amount to misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Even if the declaration was wrong, the absence of proved suppression meant the extended limitation period for recovery could not be invoked. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the associated penalty could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:38:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 130 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91020</link>
      <description>An approved classification list, accepted by the department after disclosure of the products, did not by itself amount to misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Even if the declaration was wrong, the absence of proved suppression meant the extended limitation period for recovery could not be invoked. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the associated penalty could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>