<?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 (10) TMI 508 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123162</link>
    <description>Extended limitation may be invoked where an assessee suppresses material facts and withholds valuation data needed for assessment. In this CESTAT commentary, the assessee did not timely disclose the true nature of transfers of repacked and relabelled goods to a sister unit, and repeated requests for a Cost Accountant&#039;s certificate and related valuation information were not met. Misleading intimation on sale, unsupported by invoices, did not displace the transfer character of the transactions. The plea of revenue neutrality was treated as insufficient because it did not cure nondisclosure or establish bona fides. The demand and consequential liability were therefore sustained on limitation grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:21:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 508 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123162</link>
      <description>Extended limitation may be invoked where an assessee suppresses material facts and withholds valuation data needed for assessment. In this CESTAT commentary, the assessee did not timely disclose the true nature of transfers of repacked and relabelled goods to a sister unit, and repeated requests for a Cost Accountant&#039;s certificate and related valuation information were not met. Misleading intimation on sale, unsupported by invoices, did not displace the transfer character of the transactions. The plea of revenue neutrality was treated as insufficient because it did not cure nondisclosure or establish bona fides. The demand and consequential liability were therefore sustained on limitation grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>