<?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 776 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100404</link>
    <description>The show cause notice did not contain averments sufficient to invoke the extended five-year limitation period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the notice was materially identical to earlier notices already found inadequate for the proviso, the Department was not entitled to rely on the extended period. The appellant therefore succeeded on the limitation issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:22:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 776 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100404</link>
      <description>The show cause notice did not contain averments sufficient to invoke the extended five-year limitation period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the notice was materially identical to earlier notices already found inadequate for the proviso, the Department was not entitled to rely on the extended period. The appellant therefore succeeded on the limitation issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>