<?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>2010 (9) TMI 486 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203585</link>
    <description>The tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellants were liable to pay excise duty as they failed to prove the actual export of goods. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable due to the appellants&#039; willful suppression of facts, justifying the assessment of duty with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 486 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203585</link>
      <description>The tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellants were liable to pay excise duty as they failed to prove the actual export of goods. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable due to the appellants&#039; willful suppression of facts, justifying the assessment of duty with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>