<?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 412 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94564</link>
    <description>A limitation dispute based on bona fide belief was treated as a factual question because the finding depended on appreciation and interpretation of evidence. The Tribunal held that no question of law arose merely because the assessee claimed to have acted under a bona fide belief. The cited High Court rulings were distinguished on the basis that they arose from materially different factual and legal settings. On that reasoning, the reference application was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:47:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 412 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94564</link>
      <description>A limitation dispute based on bona fide belief was treated as a factual question because the finding depended on appreciation and interpretation of evidence. The Tribunal held that no question of law arose merely because the assessee claimed to have acted under a bona fide belief. The cited High Court rulings were distinguished on the basis that they arose from materially different factual and legal settings. On that reasoning, the reference application was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>