<?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>2002 (2) TMI 618 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101490</link>
    <description>Material non-disclosure of another person&#039;s brand-name use while claiming SSI exemption constitutes suppression where that fact determines exemption eligibility. Prior departmental awareness of related disputes or inspections does not preclude the extended limitation period when the specific brand-name use was withheld and intent to evade duty is established. Denial of SSI exemption consequently supports the outstanding duty demand. Penalty remains sustainable where it is founded on established duty evasion and the applicable mandatory penalty provisions; authorities concerning impermissible multiple penalties do not apply where statutory liability is independently established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:34:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 618 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101490</link>
      <description>Material non-disclosure of another person&#039;s brand-name use while claiming SSI exemption constitutes suppression where that fact determines exemption eligibility. Prior departmental awareness of related disputes or inspections does not preclude the extended limitation period when the specific brand-name use was withheld and intent to evade duty is established. Denial of SSI exemption consequently supports the outstanding duty demand. Penalty remains sustainable where it is founded on established duty evasion and the applicable mandatory penalty provisions; authorities concerning impermissible multiple penalties do not apply where statutory liability is independently established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>