<?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>2005 (10) TMI 481 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120255</link>
    <description>Extended limitation under excise law could not be invoked where the assessee had informed the revenue that goods were not available after manufacturing stopped, and the department failed to establish the manner of alleged clandestine removal or any intent to evade duty. In the absence of material showing suppression with mens rea, the longer limitation period was unavailable. The consequential demand for duty, interest and penalty therefore could not survive and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:24:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 481 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120255</link>
      <description>Extended limitation under excise law could not be invoked where the assessee had informed the revenue that goods were not available after manufacturing stopped, and the department failed to establish the manner of alleged clandestine removal or any intent to evade duty. In the absence of material showing suppression with mens rea, the longer limitation period was unavailable. The consequential demand for duty, interest and penalty therefore could not survive and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>