<?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 (4) TMI 238 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204799</link>
    <description>A show-cause notice issued years after CENVAT credit disclosure was held time-barred because the department already knew the material facts when the credit was declared in 2003. On that basis, suppression of facts was not made out, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable. The later notice issued in 2007 could not be sustained under the extended limitation regime, and the resulting demand was treated as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 238 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204799</link>
      <description>A show-cause notice issued years after CENVAT credit disclosure was held time-barred because the department already knew the material facts when the credit was declared in 2003. On that basis, suppression of facts was not made out, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable. The later notice issued in 2007 could not be sustained under the extended limitation regime, and the resulting demand was treated as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>