<?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>2000 (3) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93304</link>
    <description>Misdeclaration of yarn composition to obtain exemption under Notification No. 224/79-C.E. was established where the records showed 70% wool and 15% nylon, but the actual supply was worsted yarn containing 70% wool and 30% nylon; the cited factory records and gate passes were treated as fictitious and the notification benefit was wrongly availed. Concealment of the true manufacture and supply pattern, supported by incorrect statutory records and false entries, amounted to suppression of material facts and fraud, so the extended limitation period was available despite the normal time bar. The demand and penalty were sustained on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:18:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93304</link>
      <description>Misdeclaration of yarn composition to obtain exemption under Notification No. 224/79-C.E. was established where the records showed 70% wool and 15% nylon, but the actual supply was worsted yarn containing 70% wool and 30% nylon; the cited factory records and gate passes were treated as fictitious and the notification benefit was wrongly availed. Concealment of the true manufacture and supply pattern, supported by incorrect statutory records and false entries, amounted to suppression of material facts and fraud, so the extended limitation period was available despite the normal time bar. The demand and penalty were sustained on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>