<?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>2011 (6) TMI 86 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204273</link>
    <description>Clearances of moulds to a sister unit were treated as revenue neutral because any duty paid would have been available as credit to the recipient unit, so the duty demand was not sustainable. Prior disclosure of the clearances to the excise department, coupled with the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty, meant the extended limitation period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 86 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204273</link>
      <description>Clearances of moulds to a sister unit were treated as revenue neutral because any duty paid would have been available as credit to the recipient unit, so the duty demand was not sustainable. Prior disclosure of the clearances to the excise department, coupled with the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty, meant the extended limitation period could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>