<?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 370 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94413</link>
    <description>The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable because the Department did not establish suppression of material facts or any intent to evade duty. The agreement, purchase orders, invoices, gate passes and RT-12 returns were already available to the Department, and the show cause notice itself referred to those records. On those facts, the longer limitation period could not be invoked, and the demand was held to be time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 370 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94413</link>
      <description>The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable because the Department did not establish suppression of material facts or any intent to evade duty. The agreement, purchase orders, invoices, gate passes and RT-12 returns were already available to the Department, and the show cause notice itself referred to those records. On those facts, the longer limitation period could not be invoked, and the demand was held to be time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>