<?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>2007 (6) TMI 443 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122611</link>
    <description>Prior disclosure to the jurisdictional officer defeated the allegation of suppression, because the supply and intended use of corrugated boxes had been communicated in advance and the department knew the relevant facts. On that basis, the extended limitation period under central excise law could not be invoked, and the demand was held time-barred. The appeal therefore succeeded on limitation alone, with the impugned order set aside and relief granted to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:09:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 443 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122611</link>
      <description>Prior disclosure to the jurisdictional officer defeated the allegation of suppression, because the supply and intended use of corrugated boxes had been communicated in advance and the department knew the relevant facts. On that basis, the extended limitation period under central excise law could not be invoked, and the demand was held time-barred. The appeal therefore succeeded on limitation alone, with the impugned order set aside and relief granted to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>