<?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 (10) TMI 469 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97470</link>
    <description>Extended limitation cannot be invoked merely on an allegation of misclassification where the goods were consistently classified under the same heading in approved classification lists and the record shows no substantive material of suppression or misstatement. Misclassification by itself was treated as insufficient to trigger the longer period. The extended period of limitation was therefore held unjustified, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:05:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 469 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97470</link>
      <description>Extended limitation cannot be invoked merely on an allegation of misclassification where the goods were consistently classified under the same heading in approved classification lists and the record shows no substantive material of suppression or misstatement. Misclassification by itself was treated as insufficient to trigger the longer period. The extended period of limitation was therefore held unjustified, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>