<?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>2003 (7) TMI 372 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107658</link>
    <description>Duty demand was held time-barred because the department had already been put on notice of the relevant facts, including fabrication work, free supply of raw materials by the buyer, the contracts, and the invoices. On the disclosed material, clearances were made on fabrication charges alone, and omission of the value of free-supplied material could not be treated as suppression with intent to evade duty. The annual declaration relied on by the Revenue did not override the specific contracts and earlier disclosures, and the department had sufficient material to examine valuation within time. The extended period was therefore not sustainable, and the demand was barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:25:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 372 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107658</link>
      <description>Duty demand was held time-barred because the department had already been put on notice of the relevant facts, including fabrication work, free supply of raw materials by the buyer, the contracts, and the invoices. On the disclosed material, clearances were made on fabrication charges alone, and omission of the value of free-supplied material could not be treated as suppression with intent to evade duty. The annual declaration relied on by the Revenue did not override the specific contracts and earlier disclosures, and the department had sufficient material to examine valuation within time. The extended period was therefore not sustainable, and the demand was barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>