<?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 (12) TMI 679 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102967</link>
    <description>Duty demand was challenged as time-barred because the classification list had already been approved, and the limitation issue was treated as covered by the Supreme Court decision in Cotspun. On that basis, the demand for the relevant period could not be sustained, and the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:17:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 679 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102967</link>
      <description>Duty demand was challenged as time-barred because the classification list had already been approved, and the limitation issue was treated as covered by the Supreme Court decision in Cotspun. On that basis, the demand for the relevant period could not be sustained, and the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>