<?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 (10) TMI 324 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94939</link>
    <description>Full disclosure of the exemption claim in approved classification lists barred the department from alleging suppression or wilful misstatement to invoke the extended period of limitation for handloom cess. Because the assessee had stated that no cess was payable and had sought exemption, and the lists were approved without objection, the demand could not be sustained as time-barred. The stated result was that the appeal succeeded on limitation and the demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:51:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 324 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94939</link>
      <description>Full disclosure of the exemption claim in approved classification lists barred the department from alleging suppression or wilful misstatement to invoke the extended period of limitation for handloom cess. Because the assessee had stated that no cess was payable and had sought exemption, and the lists were approved without objection, the demand could not be sustained as time-barred. The stated result was that the appeal succeeded on limitation and the demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>