<?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>2009 (2) TMI 554 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125406</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order upholding the demand of duty and penalty for Glass Shells used for miniature bulbs. The Tribunal found that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified as the appellants had provided sufficient information, rendering the finding of suppression unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation, granting the appellants consequential relief in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:41:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 554 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125406</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order upholding the demand of duty and penalty for Glass Shells used for miniature bulbs. The Tribunal found that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified as the appellants had provided sufficient information, rendering the finding of suppression unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation, granting the appellants consequential relief in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>