<?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 (7) TMI 792 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100200</link>
    <description>The extended limitation period was not available where the assessee had disclosed manufacture of compressors and air-conditioners in classification lists and RT 12 returns, and the department was already aware of the nature of clearances. On those facts, suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, so the demand and penalty could not be sustained for the exempted clearances. The Tribunal also treated the amendment to the exemption notification as clarificatory, limiting the longer period from being invoked on that basis. Only supplies to IMF and Skylark remained outside the exemption claim, and the matter was left for requantification for that limited category.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:42:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 792 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100200</link>
      <description>The extended limitation period was not available where the assessee had disclosed manufacture of compressors and air-conditioners in classification lists and RT 12 returns, and the department was already aware of the nature of clearances. On those facts, suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, so the demand and penalty could not be sustained for the exempted clearances. The Tribunal also treated the amendment to the exemption notification as clarificatory, limiting the longer period from being invoked on that basis. Only supplies to IMF and Skylark remained outside the exemption claim, and the matter was left for requantification for that limited category.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>