<?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>2001 (8) TMI 434 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97239</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation under the Customs Act could be invoked only if suppression or wilful misstatement was proved. The notice alleged deliberate non-disclosure of input-stage credit and false declarations, but the shipping bill and AR4 forms contained no statement on Modvat credit and no supporting evidence established suppression. The basis for the extended limitation period therefore failed, and the Revenue could not rely on the proviso to Section 28(1).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:31:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 434 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97239</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation under the Customs Act could be invoked only if suppression or wilful misstatement was proved. The notice alleged deliberate non-disclosure of input-stage credit and false declarations, but the shipping bill and AR4 forms contained no statement on Modvat credit and no supporting evidence established suppression. The basis for the extended limitation period therefore failed, and the Revenue could not rely on the proviso to Section 28(1).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>