<?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>2006 (7) TMI 458 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119802</link>
    <description>The Tribunal determined that the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was inapplicable due to the absence of willful suppression or misstatement by the appellant. Consequently, the demand was deemed time-barred, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential reliefs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2024 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 458 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119802</link>
      <description>The Tribunal determined that the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was inapplicable due to the absence of willful suppression or misstatement by the appellant. Consequently, the demand was deemed time-barred, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential reliefs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>