<?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>2008 (7) TMI 642 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123825</link>
    <description>The limitation issue turned on the Explanation to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which excludes time only when service or issuance of the show cause notice is stayed by a court order. A stay of the levy&#039;s operation was not enough, because no order restrained issue or service of the notice. As the notice was otherwise issued beyond the normal six-month period, the statutory exclusion did not apply and the notice was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:15:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 642 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123825</link>
      <description>The limitation issue turned on the Explanation to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which excludes time only when service or issuance of the show cause notice is stayed by a court order. A stay of the levy&#039;s operation was not enough, because no order restrained issue or service of the notice. As the notice was otherwise issued beyond the normal six-month period, the statutory exclusion did not apply and the notice was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>