<?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 351 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209977</link>
    <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where the assessee acted under a bona fide view supported by earlier Tribunal decisions in its favour, and there was no suppression or wilful misdeclaration. The demand related to an earlier period, but the later show-cause notice could not convert that conduct into deliberate concealment merely because a contrary view emerged later. The Tribunal therefore treated the demand as time-barred and found it unnecessary to examine the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183416" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 351 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209977</link>
      <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where the assessee acted under a bona fide view supported by earlier Tribunal decisions in its favour, and there was no suppression or wilful misdeclaration. The demand related to an earlier period, but the later show-cause notice could not convert that conduct into deliberate concealment merely because a contrary view emerged later. The Tribunal therefore treated the demand as time-barred and found it unnecessary to examine the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>