<?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 (9) TMI 730 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100875</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation was unavailable where the manufacturer had filed a declaration disclosing the cutting and slitting process applied to duty-paid jumbo rolls and sought exemption on that basis. As the department was informed of the nature of the activity, there was no suppression of material facts to justify invoking the extended limitation period. The demand for duty could not therefore be sustained on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:27:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 730 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100875</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation was unavailable where the manufacturer had filed a declaration disclosing the cutting and slitting process applied to duty-paid jumbo rolls and sought exemption on that basis. As the department was informed of the nature of the activity, there was no suppression of material facts to justify invoking the extended limitation period. The demand for duty could not therefore be sustained on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>